On 02/07/2014 16:02, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
And even if syslogd has some warts, it has the major benefit of being
what's used by huge swaths of open-source software that I can mostly
just use as-is if my logging system is syslog-compatible.
Of course it is necessary for a system to implement a syslogd interface
for programs that use syslog(); but the syslogd interface is only a
frontend ("listen on /dev/log, accept connections, read the log streams"),
and it's trivial to implement.
What Denys and I are suggesting is to replace the monolithic "syslogd"
binary with a combination of better designed, dedicated tools: a syslogd
interface frontend reading from /dev/log, and a generic logging backend
that does not suffer from legacy syslogd problems.
The "runit" way, also implemented in Busybox, is to use socklog as frontend
and svlogd as backend. The "s6" way is to use
"s6-ipcserver /dev/log ucspilogd" as frontend and s6-log as backend. Both
svlogd and s6-log are designed to make log processing adaptable and easy.
And if you need direct network logging, you can even use the original
svlogd implementation in runit. It's quite small.
--
Laurent
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
