or is https://community.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingIds simply just the number ranges within the JBAS subsystem ?

Maybe EJB needs its own subsystem id ? …or is the i18n number system just completely separate from this ? /max On Jan 26, 2012, at 08:24, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > This relates to https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3454 where Carlo > noticed that in the EJB subsystem (and perhaps in some other subsystem > too) we exceed the numeric range for logging ids listed here > https://community.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingIds. I see a couple of problems > here: > > 1) The fact that we are already having almost more than 200 message ids > for EJB subsystem alone makes it look like a bit too much IMO. Looking > at many of those messages, they are sometimes related to invalid > arguments being passed to methods and we throwing > IllegalArgumentException with a specific message id. Unfortunately, this > appears to be repeated many times with different ids with a different > message instead of just having a common id/message (perhaps across > subsystems). > > 2) There are some unused message ids (left around after some refactoring > of code and no longer relevant). Is it too late to clean this up now? I > mean, obviously using an existing message id for a new log message > instead of what it represented earlier isn't a good idea after a catalog > of message ids has been published. But as of now, we don't have such a > catalog published anywhere. So should I go ahead and cleanup some of > these unused message ids? > > 3) How do I go about this specific issue? Use a new range for more EJB > messages? So we would end up with some EJB messages in the range > 14100-14399 and some others in 19100-19399 (an example). Is that > multiple set of ranges for a subsystem a good thing? What happens the > next time we exhaust this range? The other option I see is that there > are some unused message ids between 14143 and 14300. I can refactor the > existing messages (which are falling outside the allocated range) to use > the unused ids, but then it depends on what we decide about #2 above > (i.e. some of the 143xx ids that were used earlier will no longer we > relevant). > > -Jaikiran > _______________________________________________ > jboss-as7-dev mailing list > jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev /max http://about.me/maxandersen

> On Thursday 26 January 2012 05:15 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> or is https://community.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingIds simply just the number ranges within >> the JBAS subsystem ? > Yes, that page lists the JBAS subsystem ranges. So the ids for EJB subsystem within JBAS are currently allocated to be between (JBAS) 14100-14399. gotcha so I wasn't all confused ;) I just thought the "bigger" subsystems of AS would have its own "group" and not just subrange. /max > > -Jaikiran >> >> Maybe EJB needs its own subsystem id ? >> >> …or is the i18n number system just completely separate from this ? >> >> /max >> >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 08:24, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> >>> This relates to https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3454 where Carlo >>> noticed that in the EJB subsystem (and perhaps in some other subsystem >>> too) we exceed the numeric range for logging ids listed here >>> https://community.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingIds. I see a couple of problems >>> here: >>> >>> 1) The fact that we are already having almost more than 200 message ids >>> for EJB subsystem alone makes it look like a bit too much IMO. Looking >>> at many of those messages, they are sometimes related to invalid >>> arguments being passed to methods and we throwing >>> IllegalArgumentException with a specific message id. Unfortunately, this >>> appears to be repeated many times with different ids with a different >>> message instead of just having a common id/message (perhaps across >>> subsystems). >>> >>> 2) There are some unused message ids (left around after some refactoring >>> of code and no longer relevant). Is it too late to clean this up now? I >>> mean, obviously using an existing message id for a new log message >>> instead of what it represented earlier isn't a good idea after a catalog >>> of message ids has been published. But as of now, we don't have such a >>> catalog published anywhere. So should I go ahead and cleanup some of >>> these unused message ids? >>> >>> 3) How do I go about this specific issue? Use a new range for more EJB >>> messages? So we would end up with some EJB messages in the range >>> 14100-14399 and some others in 19100-19399 (an example). Is that >>> multiple set of ranges for a subsystem a good thing? What happens the >>> next time we exhaust this range? The other option I see is that there >>> are some unused message ids between 14143 and 14300. I can refactor the >>> existing messages (which are falling outside the allocated range) to use >>> the unused ids, but then it depends on what we decide about #2 above >>> (i.e. some of the 143xx ids that were used earlier will no longer we >>> relevant). >>> >>> -Jaikiran >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev >> >> /max >> http://about.me/maxandersen >> >> >> > /max http://about.me/maxandersen _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

1) The fact that we are already having almost more than 200 message ids for EJB subsystem alone makes it look like a bit too much IMO. Looking at many of those messages, they are sometimes related to invalid arguments being passed to methods and we throwing IllegalArgumentException with a specific message id. Unfortunately, this appears to be repeated many times with different ids with a different message instead of just having a common id/message (perhaps across subsystems).

On 1/26/12 8:26 AM, Ondrej Zizka wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 12:54 +0530, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > >> 1) The fact that we are already having almost more than 200 message ids >> for EJB subsystem alone makes it look like a bit too much IMO. Looking >> at many of those messages, they are sometimes related to invalid >> arguments being passed to methods and we throwing >> IllegalArgumentException with a specific message id. Unfortunately, this >> appears to be repeated many times with different ids with a different >> message instead of just having a common id/message (perhaps across >> subsystems). > I'd leave it fine-grained, as it will help users find a solution for the > specific situation/argument. my2c > There are a number of places where we're reusing the same message for the same situation in different places (e.g. simple defensive coding null checks.) GSS was actually considering assigning some resources to convert those to separate messages. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that, but for sure I don't think we should spend energy now combining existing messages.

This relates to https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3454 where Carlo noticed that in the EJB subsystem (and perhaps in some other subsystem too) we exceed the numeric range for logging ids listed here https://community.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingIds. I see a couple of problems here: 1) The fact that we are already having almost more than 200 message ids for EJB subsystem alone makes it look like a bit too much IMO. Looking at many of those messages, they are sometimes related to invalid arguments being passed to methods and we throwing IllegalArgumentException with a specific message id. Unfortunately, this appears to be repeated many times with different ids with a different message instead of just having a common id/message (perhaps across subsystems). 2) There are some unused message ids (left around after some refactoring of code and no longer relevant). Is it too late to clean this up now? I mean, obviously using an existing message id for a new log message instead of what it represented earlier isn't a good idea after a catalog of message ids has been published. But as of now, we don't have such a catalog published anywhere. So should I go ahead and cleanup some of these unused message ids? 3) How do I go about this specific issue? Use a new range for more EJB messages? So we would end up with some EJB messages in the range 14100-14399 and some others in 19100-19399 (an example). Is that multiple set of ranges for a subsystem a good thing? What happens the next time we exhaust this range? The other option I see is that there are some unused message ids between 14143 and 14300. I can refactor the existing messages (which are falling outside the allocated range) to use the unused ids, but then it depends on what we decide about #2 above (i.e. some of the 143xx ids that were used earlier will no longer we relevant). -Jaikiran _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev