-----Original Message----- From: lumberjack-developers-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org [mailto:lumberjack-developers-bounces@lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of William Heinbockel Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:09 PM To: lumberjack logging Subject: Re: [lumberjack] connection to syslog (or equivalent)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
I posted some of this at the bottom of a long message yesterday that
nobody
replied to, so I broke it out to a separate thread
The traditional syslog interface has been a write-only interface,
with the
only feedback being that the write could block.
With the new formats and new syslog replacement library, does there
need to
be some rethinking of this interface?
JSON can be pushed through the traditional syslog interface with no
changes
(which is one of the attractions of using JSON), but when we support additional formats, especially ones with type information, we need to
have a
way to tell what format to use when writing the log.
I don't think this is right approach. The end goal is to support structured log messages. The first step is to introduce the capability to sent structured events via existing capabilities (read: JSON over Syslog)
The next steps would be the ELAPI/selog API that would introduce a new logging interface, probably maintaining at least minimal compatibility with the syslog daemon (not the syslog API or syslog protocol). This would allow us to define and support more feature-rich log protocols and other features.
I am with Botond, Bazsi and Bill here: let's keep it simplex for now. Duplex syslog is not really standardized yet and requires a new protocol/effort. IMHO the main point why all previous tries at standardizing structured logging failed was that they were to ambituous. Let's go for the low-hanging fruit, get experience and do the rest in the next iteration. If we do right this time, I guess there will be enough momentum left, based on success, for the next iteration. Evolve, not revolve ;)
My 2 cts...
Rainer