On 12/4/20 1:54 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:44:46PM +0100, Rüdiger Plüm wrote:
>> On 12/1/20 4:02 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>> Would a crazy option 4 be to add VENDOR_APLOGNO() which could add a prefix
>>> to the log number to be used in any patches?
>>>
>>> For example, V_APLOGNO('R', 123) could produce AHR123
>>>
>>> This would make it clear that the error comes from a patch from another
>>> distribution.
>>
>> Sounds like a good idea, as this would allow each vendor to manage its
>> own number range independently from each other and us and it would be
>> easy to spot such vendor specific error numbers in any kind of
>> reports.
>
> I dunno, this seems a bit over-engineering, upstream we'd have to
> maintain somewhere a registry of the special vendor prefixes as well as
I don't think that we need this registry as long as the V_APLOGNO does not
allow '' as first parameter.
How likely will it be that multiple vendors will work on the same distribution
of HTTP server?
We could even have a static macro V_APLOGNO(123) that would produce AHV123 to
mark this as a vendor specific number.
I think the registry would be only needed if V_APLOGNO would be used in 3rd
party modules, where we could have
modules from different vendors loaded. But even then you could argue that it is
not needed as you have the module
that created the log message in the log file and hence you can tell from which
vendor this message is created.
Regards
Rüdiger
