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