Open Stack

On 5 February 2015 at 13:20, Rochelle Grober <rochelle.grober at huawei.com> wrote:
> Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.thomas at gmail.com] on Wednesday, February 04,
> 2015 8:34 AM wrote:
>
>
>
> The downside of numbers rather than camel-case text is that they are less
> likely to stick in the memory of regular users. Not a huge think, but a
> reduction in usability, I think. On the other hand they might lead to less
> guessing about the error with insufficient info, I suppose.
>
> To make the global registry easier, we can just use a per-service prefix,
> and then keep the error catalogue in the service code repo, pulling them
> into some sort of release periodically
>
>
>
> [Rockyg]  In discussions at the summit about assigning error codes, we
> determined it would be pretty straightforward to build a tool that could be
> called when a new code was needed and it would both assign an unused code
> and insert the error summary for the code in the DB it would keep to ensure
> uniqueness.  If you didn’t provide a summary, it wouldn’t spit out an error
> code;-)  Simple little tool that could be in oslo, or some cross-project
> code location.

Apropos of logging, has https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424 been
considered? Combined with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5426 we'd
have a standards based (and thus already supported by logging and
analysis tools) framework. aka, we seem to be on the verge of
inventing a thing thats already been invented.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud