Hi Sreenivas, Prashanth,
I asked Carla for help to determine who the module owner of
admin/monitor is (is that documented anywhere?).
She replied that it's you.
I need module owner's approval to commit this bug fix. Could you review
the changes in admin/monitor?
Thanks!
Dies
Dies Koper wrote:
> Hi Jan, Byron, Shin-Wai, admin/monitor owner,
>
> I have attached a patch to issue #9896 (issue #4 in my previous list),
> please review.
>
> admin/monitor (?):
> admin\monitor\src\main\java\org\glassfish\admin\monitor\LogStrings.properties
>
>
> common-util (Byron?):
> common\common-util\src\main\java\com\sun\logging\enterprise\system\tools\launcher\LogStrings.properties
>
> common\common-util\src\main\java\com\sun\logging\enterprise\system\tools\admin\LogStrings.properties
>
> common\common-util\src\main\java\com\sun\logging\enterprise\system\core\selfmanagement\LogStrings.properties
>
>
> security (Shin-Wai?):
> security\core\src\main\resources\com\sun\logging\enterprise\system\core\security\LogStrings.properties
>
>
> web (Jan):
> web\war-util\src\main\resources\com\sun\logging\enterprise\system\container\web\LogStrings.properties
>
>
> This patch only covers the issues in LogStrings.properties.
> I hope to send out a patch review request for the remaining message
> files by Monday or Tuesday. If you think you might be too busy to review
> a patch then, would you consider authorizing someone (Carla, for
> instance, or even just me) to review it so I can commit it before HCF?
> Note that the only changes I'm making here are for the single quotes issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Dies
>
>
> Dies Koper wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We had several threads about the messages: that they need message IDs,
>> diag info and (not much discussed) be externalized for localization.
>> Sekhar has even prepared a tool to help.
>>
>> Since then I think everybody has been too busy to actually do the work.
>>
>> I'd like to help out where I can, and already sent out a patch to
>> Shalini directly for jdbc, but felt we still have different opinions
>> about what to do. I'd like to move the discussion here to explain my
>> intentions so that all the module owners for whom I might prepare
>> similar patches are in agreement with it.
>>
>> For now, I'd like to fix the following issues:
>>
>> 1. Messages with no ID
>>
>> 2. Typos (just the obvious ones, I'm not a professional proofreader)
>>
>> 3. Message ID (layout) issues (such as space in "RAR 7014")
>>
>> 4. Single apostrophes in messages with arguments (see issue #9896)
>>
>> For most messages I can't supply the diag info, it would take too much
>> time to investigate each and find meaningful check/cause explanations.
>> Is that okay?
>>
>> Although from the discussions I understood that message IDs on INFO
>> messages are "not required", I did not take it to mean INFO messages
>> CANNOT have IDs. In many cases it will be easier for me to just add IDs
>> to all messages, as cross-referencing with the logging code to check the
>> level would take a lot of time. Is that okay?
>> (Of course I would be careful not to add IDs to messages that should not
>> have IDs, and you'll have a chance to double-check when you review the
>> patches.)
>>
>> Also, it is my understanding that the doc team will run a tool at the
>> end to pick up all messages from the property files, so I do not need to
>> worry about updating the docs. Is that correct?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dies