On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:09, Stefan Fritsch <s...@sfritsch.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote: >> Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.: >> > On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >> >> Currently my scripts produces: >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff >> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.list >> >> >> >> This is level info and up, but that is easily changed. >> > >> > Everything from debug level up should be coded. Suggestion, >> > should we allocate numeric ranges per-file, core vs add-on >> > module, so that there is room for expansion? > > I am not sure that this is necessary. The error log lines already > contain the module name or "core". > > Actually I currently have two scripts, one that tries to identify > where to add a number and adds AHxxxx, and another one that takes each > AHxxxx and replaces it with the next free number. So programmers would > only need to add AHxxxx and run the second script over the source > file. > > The only disadvantage may be that in a list sorted by log number, > messages by the same module would not appear next to each other. On > the other hand, it should be easy to extend the script to also create > a list sorted by module or source file name if that is useful. > >> another suggestion - perhaps add a 3rd char: >> AHCxxxx -> core >> AHMxxxx -> module >> then we would have for both core and modules the whole range of >> 9999 error codes ... > > Sometimes we move code from the core to a module or vice versa. If the > code is mostly unchanged, I would want to keep the error message > number in this case. So best not encode that in the number, IMHO. > > If we ever hit the 9999 codes, we could either switch to hex or add > another digit. Or would it be better to use 5 digits right away? > > > Another thought: Would having the AH0815 numbers verbatim in the > source actually hurt search engine users because they get hits on > svn.apache.org, github, and whatever. Maybe a macro that hides the > actual form would be better? > > #define APLOGNO(n) "AH" #n > > should do the trick. The source would then contain > > ap_log_error(..., APLOGNO(0815) "foo went wrong", ...); > > which would not produce a hit for AH0815. > > Thoughts?
Any reason *not* to use 5 digits? -- Sent from my toaster.
