mathijssch at gmail
Mar 9, 2012, 7:09 AM
Post #8 of 9
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen [at] rcbowen> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> AFAIR the log tags were motivated by Stefan in order to be able to exactly
> identify a certain message, e.g. when doing a search on a search engine.
> The plan is *not* to reduce to reduce the logging down to the log tag and
> leave module name, message string and all the other nice info out, because
> you could look it up in the docs.
> Yes. There were many conversations that led to this. The one I remember
> was at ApacheCon, but I'm sure it's been discussed before.
> Perhaps I misunderstood what Mathijs was saying? Anyways, my expectation
> is that the error message itself still remain useful, assuming you know
> what it means. The tag will then be something you'd Google for and find a
> more detailed explanation, in particular with a recipe of how to fix the
It was indeed just a starting point, and the intention of such a list would
be that if a user google's for the AHxxxx code, he would arrive on our
wiki, where more explanation can be found (if thats needed). This can be a
simple explanation text, or a link to another article.
I have started a wiki page for this:
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/ListOfErrors and will go over some of the odd
results such as empty messages.
The only thing I'm worried about here is about keeping this list up-to-date
> The primary goal, finding traces of similar log errors in the net should
> be satisfied by the tag itself. Using the tags as an index into a more
> detailed description of log errors is fine, but we won't be able to do it
> for most messages - there are to many.
> I wonder whether such info would fit into the wiki?
> On the one hand, I don't agree that there are too many. There are no space
> limits on the Internet.
> On the other hand, I don't expect that most of them will need any further
> detail. There's only one way to interpret "AH00128: File does not exist:
> /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/asdf", right? But the ones that require more
> explanation would have more than just the plain error message, but would
> have a more detailed explanation of what to do about it. Sort of what we
> already started doing on the wiki, but with a more useful lookup code.
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen [at] rcbowen :: @rbowen
> rbowen [at] apache