Message96366
The only design level question I can see is as follows:
ExceptionName matches ExceptionName (always)
a.b.ExceptionName matches ExceptionName (under IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL)
ExceptionName matches a.b.ExceptionName (under IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL)
a.b.ExceptionName matches x.y.ExceptionName (???)
Should that 4th case still match under IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL? My
personal inclination is that it should match, but figured the point was
worth discussing explicitly.
The main reason I think it should match is that it would allow
reasonably graceful handling of module renames between 2.x and 3.x. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-12-13 23:33:52 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, lregebro |
2009-12-13 23:33:52 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1260747232.54.0.254372496198.issue7490@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-12-13 23:33:49 | ncoghlan | link | issue7490 messages |
2009-12-13 23:33:48 | ncoghlan | create | |
|