On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:51:36 Jie Zhang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> The problem is what we want here as a parameter is something to tell
>> what we describe is a warning or an error. urj_log_level_t is not
>> suitable here. I was lazy and tried to avoid introducing a new type
>> something like:
>>
>> typedef enum
>> {
>>   ERROR,
>>   WARNING,
>> }
>> urj_error_or_warning_t;
>>
>> or define urj_error_describe as
>>
>> const char *
>> urj_error_describe (urj_log_level_t level, bool is_error)
>> {}
>>
>> But I'm afraid this is not intuitive when using.
>>
>> or define two interfaces:
>>
>> urj_error_describe () and urj_warning_describe ()
>>
>> both will call an internal urj_error_warning_describe (urj_log_level_t
>> level, bool is_error)
>>
>> Which way do you like more?
>
> i wonder why we have this at all.  we already have urj_log_level_t declaring
> whether something is an error, a warning, or something else.  why are we
> manually adding "Error:" and "Warning:" prefixes to the logged strings ?  why
> cant urj_log() prefix things appropriately based on the level ?
>
Imagine set the level to "all", but you still want to see an error
with "Error" prefix instead of "all" prefix.

>> >> 1. I cannot find a suitable errnum for some error messages in ICE-100B
>> >> cable. I thought adding a new errnum like URJ_ERROR_ICE_100B. But does
>> >> that means we need a number for each cable driver?
>> >
>> > we can add a general URJ_ERROR_CABLE if there's something missing.  what
>> > exactly is the case you're handling that the current URJ_ERROR_* dont
>> > cover ?
>>
>> For example error when parsing HEX firmware file. Now I use a new one
>> URJ_ERROR_FIRMWARE, which I think is better than the cable one since
>> other cables can also use this.
>
> i think adding a new general level like URJ_ERROR_INVALID_XXX where XXX could
> be INPUT or FILE or DATA or something.  then it can be used with any command
> that takes a file for input.
>
Then we will need to change all existing BSDL file parsing error to
use this general one. To avoid touch those existing code, I chose
URJ_ERROR_FIRMWARE.


Jie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
UrJTAG-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development

Reply via email to