Author ncoghlan
Recipients lregebro, ncoghlan
Date 2009-12-13.23:33:48
SpamBayes Score 0.0124894
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1260747232.54.0.254372496198.issue7490@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-12-13 23:33:52ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, lregebro
2009-12-13 23:33:52ncoghlansetmessageid: <1260747232.54.0.254372496198.issue7490@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-12-13 23:33:49ncoghlanlinkissue7490 messages
2009-12-13 23:33:48ncoghlancreate