On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > AFAIR the log tags were motivated by Stefan in order to be able to exactly > identify a certain message, e.g. when doing a search on a search engine. > The plan is *not* to reduce to reduce the logging down to the log tag and > leave module name, message string and all the other nice info out, because > you could look it up in the docs. > > > > Yes. There were many conversations that led to this. The one I remember > was at ApacheCon, but I'm sure it's been discussed before. > > Perhaps I misunderstood what Mathijs was saying? Anyways, my expectation > is that the error message itself still remain useful, assuming you know > what it means. The tag will then be something you'd Google for and find a > more detailed explanation, in particular with a recipe of how to fix the > problem. > It was indeed just a starting point, and the intention of such a list would be that if a user google's for the AHxxxx code, he would arrive on our wiki, where more explanation can be found (if thats needed). This can be a simple explanation text, or a link to another article. I have started a wiki page for this: http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/ListOfErrors and will go over some of the odd results such as empty messages. The only thing I'm worried about here is about keeping this list up-to-date with trunk. > > > The primary goal, finding traces of similar log errors in the net should > be satisfied by the tag itself. Using the tags as an index into a more > detailed description of log errors is fine, but we won't be able to do it > for most messages - there are to many. > > I wonder whether such info would fit into the wiki? > > > On the one hand, I don't agree that there are too many. There are no space > limits on the Internet. > > On the other hand, I don't expect that most of them will need any further > detail. There's only one way to interpret "AH00128: File does not exist: > /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/asdf", right? But the ones that require more > explanation would have more than just the plain error message, but would > have a more detailed explanation of what to do about it. Sort of what we > already started doing on the wiki, but with a more useful lookup code. > > -- > Rich Bowen > rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen > rbo...@apache.org >
