My vote is to keep our development efforts separate from the CEE name
for now.
While most of it has settled, there is too much potential for flux as
the effort has departed from trying to standardize on a minimal log
format and trying shoehorn in additional requirements.
Let's aim to keep our implementation simpler and focus on an
implementation that solves our logging problems. An implementation that
deviates from an unimplemented standard is better than no implementation
at all.
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 19:16 +0000, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I have just published a 0.1 of ceelog/libceelog ...
> looking at the recent CEE discussion list activity, this was probably
> premature, and it would be better to rename this package before too
> many people start relying on the cee* name.
I share this feeling, and the same concern...
> Any opinions? I'm considering {lib,}ljlog, or perhaps even libljlog
> and /usr/bin/lj.
I am currently using CEE/lumberjack in rsyslog doc and think about switching to either
lumberjack only or "structured logging". Structured logging is probably up to
the point, but jlog alos makes a lot of sense. Sorry, no clear vote from me. But it
definitely makes sense that everyone uses the same terms. In that sense, lumberjack may
make most sense -- and as such ljlog.
Rainer
_______________________________________________
lumberjack-developers mailing list
lumberjack-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lumberjack-developers