[Hawkular-dev] logging ID ranges

[John Mazzitelli]

> > Am 31.01.2015 um 00:32 schrieb John Mazzitelli <mazz at redhat.com>:
> > 
> > I would like to make a recommendation for logging range IDs for the
> > different components.
> > 
> > Right now, the default width of IDs are 6 characters (they can be more or
> > less, but that's the default). I'm assuming we all will use HAWK as the
> > prefix (as opposed to HAWK vs. HAWKMETRICS vs. HAWKALERTS, etc).
> 
> Didn't we agree on HAWK just a few days ago (incl. you and Jay?)

Yes. Then I realized it might not be good to have the same prefix and everyone try to divy up the IDs within it. Might be easier to have each component with its own prefix, that way we don't have to worry about having all these ID ranges across multiple modules/components.

> > Through my experience integrating this logging stuff the past few days in
> > the bus modules, I've come to appreciate the fact that we should probably
> > give more range than just 1000 IDs to a major component. I don't know
> > exactly how to do it, but I found it easier to
> 
> When the first 1000 are used, they will get another block. Do you really
> expect that we will differentiate between 1000
> different warn / error messages per component?

I assumed we would want a contiguous range - rather than a component have, say, 1000-2000 and 4000-5000, but I see there is @ValidIdRanges; I didn't realize it supported that. So that's OK. But we would still have to make sure we don't step on each other ("you just took range 4000-5000, but I got that assigned last month"). I *think* the Jboss logging processor will catch that (I know it catches reusing the same ID within the same @MessageLogger interface, I'll assume it can catch it even across message loggers).

BTW: start coding with this stuff yourself, across multiple maven modules - and you'll see it does involve some thinking on our part on how to assign these numbers so no one steps on each other and how many @MessageLogger interfaces to have and what to name them.