On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jason Smith <j...@iriscouch.com> wrote: >>> Thanks, Benoit. >>> >>> I would like to move the discussion back, one hundred percent, to >>> identifying exactly what features are good and bad for CouchDB. We are >>> in no hurry. IMHO, CouchDB does not need a patch soon. It needs >>> thoughtful, deliberate planning. >> >> >> yes and no . We don't need to be 100% to start implementation. For >> example we could just replace our current logger by lagger which would >> give us automatically support for different backend, log rotations & >> co and prepare for more attributes as well. > > Hi Benoit, let's respect Jason's request when he started this thread: > >> Seriously, please don't even mention a product or project by name.
Well this mail is mixing 2 issues. So let's separate the problems. 1. managing multi transport, improving file logging (rotation), allowing the logger to handle attributes . This is a technical point and need a technical solution 2. deciding what to log, and which format. I don't really care about the second right now. It will need some time to be solved. and I'm pretty sure all expectations can't be solve easily. While the first can be solved now. And this is the more urgent imo. We indeed haven't a good solution to log actually. logging to files isn't enough, and it's not easy to change that. Abstracting the logging in fact may be indeed the first thing to do before choosing any solution. Then people can log whatever they want from any part in the code that need log. - benoît
