Re: formal debug levels

> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 09:53 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 23:45 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > Syslog type levels come to mind. Have them as bit flags, so you can do
>> > stuff like
>> >
>> > debug(DBG_HTTP_CLT, LVL_NOTIFY | LVL_CRITICAL) ("foo\n");
>> >
>> > That'd certainly make it easier for people writing/modifying code with
>> > debugging statements; they'd know what the labels mean rather than
>> guessing
>> > at the numbers. :p
>>
>> I agree that names are better than magic numbers, both for sections and
>> debug levels. However, naming constants is a minor issue, separate from
>> how to define the levels.
>>
>> We could add bit flags for "dumps a lot of data" and perhaps "requires
>> administrator attention" though. That may simplify the levels
>> definition.
>
> I agree to a point. Bitmasks have advantages (finer-grained filtering)
> and disadvantages (less useable levels). The biggest challenge is IMO
> managing to be consistent throughout the code-base.
>

And THAT dear folks is why the 'grouped' levels I proposed. Rather than
the usage-size Alex proposed.

People in general are far better at classifying things into groups than
estimating sizes. Particularly when there is no prior knowledge of the
popularity of other non-related things (such as future indirect usage
within a loop) which may impact a size calculation.

Amos
Received on Thu Oct 25 2007 - 15:30:22 MDT