From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,699cc914522aa7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Structured exception information
References: <eog0g5$2bn$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <u7ivnp09z.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eoinoh$855$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <ud55drgzz.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eolaen$b4h$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <ur6trwdov.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eoqhhm$fjp$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <uac0dyap7.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <ep203u$o6s$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <u3b62dqj5.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <ep55f4$5c2$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <usldzbzu4.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <ep9r5i$uul$2@cernne03.cern.ch> <ubqkmqgf4.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:16:29 +0100
Message-ID: <6gac06f376.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KHlqWMBII5CoG1yTTGrcHO3Q4RQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.215.112
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1169809909 88.72.215.112 (26 Jan 2007 12:11:49
 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8597
Date: 2007-01-26T12:16:29+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com> writes:
>
>> Stephen Leake wrote:
>>
>>> In my main project at work, it is much easier to format the messages
>>> at the level where the relevant information is available.
>>
>> I prefer to have the relevant information available at the level where
>> the messages are formatted.
>
> As do I; that's what I said :).
>
>> Looks like this is exactly the difference in our approaches. :-)
>
> You have not explained _why_ you format the messages at a higher
> level than necessary.

I think one can support both approaches. Just have the exceaption text
in a specfic format, like

   "E-1234-DISK-FULL Disk full during database write"

The message identifier should be unique and can be used to
translate/reformat the message at higher layers to whatever one
wants. On the other side the message as it is is not meaningless and a
side benefit provides a unique identification when communicating to
the user

(I hope I'm not missing the topic here, since I didn't follow the
thread very closely).

Regards -- Markus