> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I agree it's simplest, but under my proposal, we lost no functionallity. > If we agree nobody uses the 'default' format TransferLog, then > I'm fine with > your suggestion. But I rather guess this is too radical, and some users > probably rely on a globally defined format, that is applied to > TransferLogs > in many servers. Anyone have additional thoughts? So if someone currently uses LogFormat "%h %l %u %t \"%r\" %>s %b" <VirtualHost ...> Transferlog logs/access_log </VirtualHost> etc under your proposal they replace that with LogFormat "%h %l %u %t \"%r\" %>s %b" CustomLog logs/access_log and under mine they replace it with LogFormat "%h %l %u %t \"%r\" %>s %b" common CustomLog logs/access_log common I don't see how the later choice loses any functionality. The thing that makes Apache configuration complicated is having "too many ways to do the same thing". Your change keeps multiple ways of doing the same thing, while my change does not. As a final point (then I swear I'll shut up ;-), take a look at the documentation for LogFormat. I did the most recent rewrite on that, and I still find it almost impossible to understand because of the multiple syntaxes. Now imagine what will happen if you make your change. That documenation will get *even more* complicated, because we will need to make references to "CustomLog type x" all over the place. The CustomLog documentation will also get more complicated under your proposal. Under my proposal, the LogFormat documentation gets much simpler and the CustomLog documentation stays the same. Joshua.
