> > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > > > > > > > > Or is there a reason to ignore those higher bits for the facility > and code? > > > > I have no idea why ENCODE_ISC_MSG written in this way. > > > > > CLASS_MASK seems to not be used anywhere, or at least I can't > remember > > > ever having seen an error code with the bit 30 (warning) or 31 > (info) > > > set. Or is it used somewhere internally as an in-band channel? > > > > Looks like something planned at the past (before Firebird) but > never used... > > > >27.07.2015 1:24, Ann Harrison wrote: > > Firebird was based on InterBase which was based on Rdb/ELN, an > implementation of DEC's [standard(!)] relational > > interface. As part of DEC's VAX software empire, DSRI used DEC's error > message facility. Every project had a code and > > used it as a prefix to its error messages. >
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Vlad Khorsun <hv...@users.sourceforge.net > > wrote: > Ann, thanks for explanation. But, it is still not clear why > ENCODE_ISC_MSG > is more strict than necessary. It limits number of facilities by 31 > (bitmask > used allows 255) and number of codes per facility by 16383 (instead of > 65535). > > Currently, we have no problem with it, just curious... > > The high bits in the codes may have been intended for severity ... I really don't remember. The high bits in the facility were to distinguish relational database errors from other DEC product errors. I'd feel free to use any of them. Cheers, Ann
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
