On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out > > ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that > > emits them. > > From my experience, any attempt at grouping some kind of numbering > like this normally results a few years later in an attempt to undo > the grouping to solve problems caused by the ranges being too > small, or running out of numbers of a sensible size.
I agree with Graham here. mod_ssl has > 300 messages, so the range per module would likely need to be something like 1000, and with > 100 modules, this would mean 6 digits in the number. And tracking one counter per module would make my script way more complex. > Ideally it should be as simple as possible, "run a script and a > number will be chosen for you" is a lot more convenient, and if a > script could warn of duplicated numbers for fixing (think the > result of cut-and-paste by someone unfamiliar with the script) > that would be ideal too. The current state is here: http://people.apache.org/~sf/log-msg-numbers.diff http://people.apache.org/~sf/log-msg-numbers.list http://people.apache.org/~sf/log-msg-numbers.scripts.diff Changes to previous are - 5 digits instead of 4 - with APLOGNO() syntax (we really want that, just think of all the archives of the svn commit mailing list) - level debug and above instead of info - now after the s/r/c/p argument and not before the format; this makes the script a bit simpler and don't miss logging calls with multi-line format strings. But the number is now frequently on a different line than the format string. I have put the scripts there, too, but they need some cleaning up. Still todo are at least ap_log_cserror, ssl_log_error, dav_log_err, and everything that has a variable as level parameter. What to do about multi-line log messages that are split over several calls to ap_log...()? Grep prefork.c for 'almost certain server failure' for an example. Maybe just add a number to the first line? This is something that will need manual adjustment. I guess before we commit this to 2.4, all other pending backports should be done. Any more comments/thoughts?
