On 10/12/2011 04:14 AM, Federico Simoncelli wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Subhendu Ghosh"<sgh...@redhat.com>
>> To: "VDSM Project Development"<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:57:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: Proposal to add message IDs to vdsm.log
>>> Need to solicit responses on the list.
>>> Dan, Saggi, Edu, Federico, please reply with your thoughts on this.
>>> We already know that in the next 2 versions the code is going to
>>> change *a lot*. So it's not clear what the value of doing this at
>>> the present moment is (adds pains for something that will change
>>> 10 times in the next year or so).
>> If you are going with codes, it makes sense to add msg ids from the
>> not as a retrofit. Yes, some message numbers may not be used when
>> code changes
>> discards a message, the overall process should be more consistent.
> My concern about this is that to be useful we must commit to the meaning
> of the IDs and in a case where not only the code changes a lot but also
> the internal flow changes (even though the APIs are consistent) we'll
> often need to provide new IDs (and remove old ones where needed).
> Therefore I feel that I won't be using IDs at all if I need to check what
> vdsm version I'm using to grep for an ID in vdsm.log.
> We could postpone the message IDs into the future. In my opinion the only
> problem at the moment is bad timing.
> If there are plans to implement also an application that is going to
> collect the message IDs, analyze them and deal with their constant change
> then I'll agree on having them now.
> Why not put our effort into more urgent matters as for example make
> vdsm/vdsmd.in 100% compatible with fedora using better tools.
> (PS. if anyone is interested in this please contact me)
> We should maintain a list of changes that we would like to make so that we
> can discuss them and rate them.
For some reference:
Common Event Expression
vdsm-devel mailing list