On Monday 27 August 2001 08:14, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic' type
> log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying 'Try
> and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'.
> Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want to
> be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3
> copies.
I understand this. The problem is that a RUN_FIRST removes any level
of redundancy. A RUN_ALL allows the server admin to setup as much
redundancy as they want. If you want to log to just spread, then set
ErrorLog to /dev/null. If it is a RUN_FIRST, and I want to log to spread,
and send an SNMP trap whenever I get a critical error, how do I do that?
This needs to be a RUN_ALL.
Ryan
> The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It would
> be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk if
> and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging module
> return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook where I
> did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs
> fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the handlers
> run.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> George
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command
> line?]
>
> > On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > > For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to
>
> turn
>
> > > off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a
> > > distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it
> > > would be better
>
> to
>
> > > do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the
> > > internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's
> > > safety/flexibility concerns better?
> >
> > There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am
>
> concerned that
>
> > if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism,
>
> then
>
> > you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever.
> >
> > Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any redundancy
> > in the system at all.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
--
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
