My "concern" with using HQL as the key is when we move this to be a central piece of ORM. ORM already is registered to use HHH for its KEY. The "concern" is where that distinction lies.
Its more a concern with the JBoss Logging idea that everything is distinct little units that can easily fit under one key. On Tue 27 Aug 2013 09:22:51 AM CDT, Gunnar Morling wrote: > Cool, thanks everyone for your feedback. > > Let's go for HQL in all the parser modules then. I'll register that > prefix at https://community.jboss.org/wiki/HowToLogInJBossProjects. > > --Gunnar > > > > 2013/8/27 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org > <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> > > I prefer HHH or HQL as well. > > > On 08/27/2013 06:20 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > > My vote goes to #2 as long as we use a shorter code. HQL-00001 > doesn't > > looks too bad. > > > > In case we incorporate this in ORM I'd change them to HHH- but > we can > > discuss that if/when that happens. > > > > On 27 August 2013 10:33, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org > <mailto:gun...@hibernate.org>> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Emmanuel and I are wondering which prefix should be used for > log messages > >> created by the parser component ("project code" in JBoss logging > >> nomenclature). > >> > >> I can see the following possibilities: > >> > >> 1) Use HHH-... as in ORM, using a reserved interval of ids > >> 2) Use a new prefix such as HQLPARSER in all messages of all parser > >> components (currently hqlparser-core and hqlparser-lucene), using a > >> reserved id interval for each such component > >> 3) Use a specific prefix for each parser component, e.g. > HQLPARSER, HQLLUCN > >> etc. > >> > >> I think 3) is the simplest from a dev perspective (no ranges to > consider), > >> but it may cause a proliferation of prefixes, possibly > confusing users. 1) > >> may be irritating when using the parser in alternative contexts > such as > >> ISPN. As an indicator, I feel it makes sense to use different > prefixes for > >> code bases living in different repos and with independent > release cycle (as > >> is the case with ORM and the parser). So I'd vote for 2. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> --Gunnar > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
