On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:41:41 -0600 >> David Boyes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> What about a human-readable message? >>> >> And if we do that, what about internationalization? >>> > >>> >Maybe. >>> >>> Please, no. That's user-level stuff, not on the wire stuff. Translate >>> the message when you log it, not in the packet. >> >> Then you have to standardize a new code and upgrade the clients before >> they can make sense of it. If this stuff is only for human-readable >> information, there's no machine processing to be done on it, so it makes >> sense to just send the string. >> > > Strongly disagree. Even after disregarding aesthetic arguments, > internationalization pretty much dictates that directly sending > strings is a non-starter. Error code lookup tables exist for a > reason: if you think it's sufficiently important that clients be able > to interpret error codes that were standardized post-build, then I > would recommend this happen via an out-of-band mechanism (e.g., a > distributed error lookup service)...
that's been shouted down before, iirc; i had proposed building one at CMU using ADM in the early 00s. i still like the idea. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
