Re: g_error considered harmful

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> In general I agree with the patch series dropping g_error() in favour
> of normal GError reporting, so programs can cope with errors.
>
> However, it removes the forced logging and it's too easy for the
> caller to ignore them, making it hard to track down when something
> goes wrong.
>
> I think this is even more relevant, because libvirt-glib is logging
> *tons* of normal/useless runtime messages, and now we are making
> silent the error messages. I would strongly prefer the other way
> around.

I think one way of solving that issue would be to use g_warning
(withing libvirt-glib domains) when calling gvir_error_new_literal().

For the rest of the messages, I will eventually send patches to
remove/lower the one I am unhappy with that really clutter a debugging
session.

-- 
Marc-André Lureau

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list



[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]