On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > AFAIR the log tags were motivated by Stefan in order to be able to exactly > identify a certain message, e.g. when doing a search on a search engine. The > plan is *not* to reduce to reduce the logging down to the log tag and leave > module name, message string and all the other nice info out, because you > could look it up in the docs.
Yes. There were many conversations that led to this. The one I remember was at ApacheCon, but I'm sure it's been discussed before. Perhaps I misunderstood what Mathijs was saying? Anyways, my expectation is that the error message itself still remain useful, assuming you know what it means. The tag will then be something you'd Google for and find a more detailed explanation, in particular with a recipe of how to fix the problem. > > The primary goal, finding traces of similar log errors in the net should be > satisfied by the tag itself. Using the tags as an index into a more detailed > description of log errors is fine, but we won't be able to do it for most > messages - there are to many. > > I wonder whether such info would fit into the wiki? On the one hand, I don't agree that there are too many. There are no space limits on the Internet. On the other hand, I don't expect that most of them will need any further detail. There's only one way to interpret "AH00128: File does not exist: /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/asdf", right? But the ones that require more explanation would have more than just the plain error message, but would have a more detailed explanation of what to do about it. Sort of what we already started doing on the wiki, but with a more useful lookup code. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
