BIND 10 #1039: Modify resolver messages

[BIND 10 Development]

#1039: Modify resolver messages
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  stephen
  stephen                            |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:         |             Milestone:
  enhancement                        |  Sprint-20110628
                   Priority:  minor  |            Resolution:
                  Component:         |             Sensitive:  0
  logging                            |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  0.5
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => stephen


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:5 stephen]:
 > > RESOLVER_NOT_ONE_QUEST still abbreviated, quest being a valid word, it
 looks strange.
 > and
 > > It took me a while to find out TMO is not a typo of TWO, but TIMEOUT.
 Maybe use just TIME instead
 > All these messages are a trade-off between readability and the length of
 the identifier: at what point do we decide it is too long? However, as I
 added the identifiers UNEXPECTED_RESPONSE and UNSUPPORTED_OPCODE, I've
 used these as a benchmark for maximum length and was able to expand more
 or less all abbreviations.

 Yes, I know it doesn't look good if they are too long. I'm not against
 abbreviations in case it is well-known (eg. SRV). And it probably isn't
 that important, if there's the description besides the identifier, just
 that when we are at it, I noted the ones which looked unknown to me.

 > One option would be to try to reduce the length of the prefix - would it
 be worth coming up with a three- or four-letter abbreviation for all of
 the different modules (e.g. abbreviating RESOLVER_ to RES_)?

 Hmm, yes, that seems reasonable. I'm just not sure if we aren't fine-
 tuning the outputs too much O:-).

 It seems OK to merge.

 With regards

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1039#comment:6>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development