> From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I'm not convinced it is any simpler to have one directive with a > whole bunch of options as opposed to a simple version of a directive, > which does what most people want, and then another one that lets them > do the complex stuff. [Didn't I say I was going to shut-up? Oh well.] I disagree with you in this case. It is easiest to configure something when all the buttons and knobs are in the same place, not when they are scattered all over. Let me give a couple specific examples/arguments: 1. Your argument only makes sense if we are going to encourage most people to use TransferLog and keep CustomLog for the users with "advanced" needs. But we don't even include TransferLog in httpd.conf-dist. The only people using TransferLog are people who started using Apache a long time ago, or people confused by the documentation (see next entry). 2. Having more than one way to do things makes the documentation much more complicated. A specific example: The logrotate documentation has always used TransferLog for its example. One of the most common questions I hear about logrotate is "I want to use logrotate, but I want to exclude .gifs from my logs; what do I do?" They don't understand that the example also applies to CustomLog. To have clear documentation, we have been changing most things to refer to CustomLog, since it subsumes the TransferLog functionality. But then, again, this defeats the purpose of having a "simple" directive that most people use. Refering to both directives everywhere would be even more confusing. 3. Users who just want the simplest stuff are probably just going to use the default httpd.conf and forget about it. What we care about is people who need to make changes from the defaults. If TransferLog is in the default httpd.conf, then any change other than the filename requires learning a new directive and its relationship to the old directive. With CustomLog, you simply expand on what you already have. The link between the log file and the log format are much clearer with CustomLog (even if you use a named format) and it is easier to learn to do complex things like conditional logging. As far as the name "CustomLog", I don't think it is that bad. It is a "customized logfile". The fact that there is no such thing as a non-customized logfile doesn't really hurt understanding of the concept. Joshua.
