[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/19/2007 11:53:00
AM:
> In the future, I may have some time to go through the code and try to
> make this more consistent, but we should discuss the strategy here
> first. Should we just make simple changes from dbg() to trace() as we
> find these in the code, or is there need for a bigger effort, now that
> OpenHPI is getting more mature and being used in production
> environments?
>
Yes to both questions. The confusion that helped the inconsitencies to
come about has been due probably to the names of the macros. dbg() was and
is intended to be used for reporting errors, so the name of the macro is
misleading.
We should change dbg() to be error() and trace() to be dbg(). Then, as you
suggest, switch everything that isn't an error to use dbg(). For now, I
think that is what makes most sense to me.
In the long run, I believe OpenHPI could benefit from using something like
this,
http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/unstable/glib-Message-Logging.html,
for a more advanced way of reporting and logging errors.
--Renier-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Openhpi-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
