I, as a user (I do PHP development), prefer a smaller number of more
extensible options.
- Casey
On Monday 31 December 2001 09:40 am, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > Isn't it time to drop TransferLog and CookieLog?
> > >
> > > We can accomplish the same by allowing that LogFormat provides the
> > > default for the CustomLog directive, in the absense of an optional
> > > [format] arg.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > One of the major 'bugs' in Apache is it's configurability ... I don't
> > > think we want to perpetuate the
> > > many-directives-to-accomplish-the-same-thing methods. Folks are making
> > > minor changes already to their configs, this is as good a time as any
> > > to jettison some of the extra cruft :)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The complexity of configuration isn't defined by the number of
> > directives. I think that requiring people to specify more options
> > to perform the "simple case" of configuration contributes to people being
> > intimidated by Apache's flexibility even when they don't want to use that
> > flexibility. The ability to use a custom logging format shouldn't
> > require that every user understand that ability just to use the "default"
> > format that most people use.
> >
> > Regardless, the name "CustomLog" just seems completely wrong for
> > the default format, and if directives are changing around then adding
> > another legacy ("well, it is called customlog because there used to be
> > another one and...") doesn't make sense.
> >
> > I would recommend either having what we have now, with a simple
> > directive (eg. TransferLog) and a more complex one (eg. CustomLog), or
> > having a simple form of the directive (eg. "TransferLog filename")
> > and a more complex form (eg. "Transferlog filename format"). People
> > shouldn't have to specify a format for the simple case.
> >
> > While it is simpler to do away with special cases from the code's
> > perspective, that isn't the user's perspective.
>
> I agree with Marc.
>
> Bill (who has no time for a more lengthly response :-)
--
Casey Allen Shobe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
