Dies,
Can you please share the changes. I didn't see your earlier mail
-Prashanth
Dies Koper wrote:
> 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
>