On 6/6/06, Suresh Thalamati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Van Couvering (JIRA) wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1376?page=comments#action_12415060 ]
>
> David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1376:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> I like Halley's recommendation, but I would suggest that providing the format Halley suggests may be difficult given our current message framework (that is, provide a message with multiple lines). It might be sufficient to say
>
*** (LS) What is the limitation for messages in Derby?
I also like the Halley's recommendation. Another approach to help the
users understand errors better might be to document the errors and
explain in more deatail what would be possible causes/solutions for a
particular error.
> Log directory {0} exists. The directory may belong to another database. Please make sure the specified logDevice location is correct.
>
I like this one, it is more clear.
*** (LS) I would prefer this:
"The log directory {0} exists. The directory might belong to another database. Ensure that the location specified for the logDevice property is correct."
> (I do like to say "please", it doesn't hurt to be polite to our users).
>
> Also, it would be helpful to say *where* you specify logDevice ( e.g. "please make sure the derby.foo.logDevice property is set to the correct location.")
*** (LS) While I like to be polite too, we are not sitting down to tea with the users :-) It is more professional in technical documentation to leave the "Please" out. Besides, the key is not to be polite, but to provide the information that users need to resolve the problem.
I think additional explanation is not really required. User will see
this error only when the s/he uses the logDevice attribute on the URL.
Thanks
-suresh
--
Laura Stewart
