On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, William Heinbockel wrote:
On Mar 27, 2012 4:17 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
Adding a new application API to generate more structured logs is a good idea. But why do we need to create a completely new interface between the logging library and syslog instead of extending the existing interface?
You don't know what you are going to break and you restrict yourself to the limitations of the current interface. It is not that I am against it, just if we want to improve it it might be best to redo it entirely.
Ok, breaking this into a separate sub-thread.
I agree that it's a good idea to know what the ideal situation is before defineing how to get there (as this lets you avoid false starts and wasted effort)
so, if /dev/log is not the best interface to passing log messages to a system daemon for delivery, what would the ideal interface look like?
I believe the following requiremsnts will apply.
There will be multiple logging formats (some people love XML, some hate it, some people will want the speed of a binary logging protocol, some people will want the debugging ease of a human-readable protocol, etc)
There needs to be a way to run multiple protocols over one interface, having to have multiple interfaces (one for each protocol) gets really messy.
The format used for the message should be able to be set by the system administrator without requireing code changes in the applications, and without depending that all applications are using the same logging library.
What other requirements do people see?
David Lang