> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Isn't it time to drop TransferLog and CookieLog?
+1
> We can accomplish the same by allowing that LogFormat provides the default
> for the CustomLog directive, in the absense of an optional [format] arg.
I haven't looked in detail, but I'm guessing that it won't work so easily,
and might just be confusing. I don't see any need to make CustomLog act
like TransferLog. If we are breaking backward compatibility, we might as
well leave only the clearest stuff.
>
> And if we offer a built-in (or default-config'ed) 'cookie' format,
> of "%{Cookie}n \"%r\" %t", then it's a two bit change to turn a CookieLog
> into a CustomLog file cookie command.
I wouldn't bother with a build-in format. We can just document the
necessary LogFormat directive.
The configuration will be simplest if we just drop TransferLog, CookieLog,
and the one-argument format of LogFormat. No functionality is lost and
everything will be much clearer.
Joshua.
