Re: CLP logging level -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: CLP logging level
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:52:57 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I understand the concept of a nice global default handler.  I'm just not 
sure that I agree with it.  There are numerous times that if my CL blows 
up on a particular line that I could deal with the situation externally, 
then reply with an R, or I, to the message and let it continue on.  Then, 
add a project to my list to modify the code to handle the situation 
automatically in the future.  Wouldn't I lose this capability with a 
global default handler?

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: CLP logging level , Simon Coulter

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.