>From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: dev-kannel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: logging in Kannel >Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:06:05 +0200 > >HI, > >In order to make things more modular I have looked into the way >logging is handled in Kannel. To my horrible discovery there are >two kinds of logging in gwlib namely, access_log.[c|h] and >log.[c|h].
I think these are meant to be roughly speaking billing log and debug log. >Accesslog is supposed to be a more simple API/function as the log >version. I also noticed accesslog is not even used in the wap >portion for instance. > >So first question is: >Why is only in smsbox and bearerbox the accesslog used and not in >the wap portion?? No one interested in the accesslog there?? >Or are people trying to get the access log part out of a generic >logfile containing also many (potentially) debug logs. This is a good question. Is someone using wapbox logs for billing ? >second question: >Would it not be easier to provide to the alog function only the Msg >structure (and maybe an extra note) where the alog function >determines the output format?? Now a 'const chat*fmt,....' >is given. >OK, this looses flexibility, but it can unify all the formats >going into the accesslog. But a more common API would allow for >multiple logpaths when this layered. Meaning firs the common >logfunction is called in there depending on the module a different >logfunction. Logging formats for billing are usually *very* strict. Someone suggested using CDR . One way to do this is indeed to let alog to do all formatting. Only input would then be type of format used. A _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
