it doesn't hurt really but the same argument apply to any specification. Do we need to be correct in implementing specs? we have to use standard and don't try to violate it.
I'm -0 for facility config but not blocking. We have to vote for this change. Thanks, Alexander Malysh Am 30.11.2010 um 15:52 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri: > Does it hurt to be able to change it? Really? > > I'm all for correctness, but extra flexibility is usually welcomed imho. > -- > Alejandro Guerrieri > aguerri...@kannel.org > > > > On 30/11/2010, at 15:26, Alexander Malysh wrote: > >> I mean, we should not allow to change syslog-facility because it's standard >> to use daemon. >> and most modern syslog daemons allow you match program name and some of then >> even regex match. >> >> Thanks, >> Alexander Malysh >> >> Am 30.11.2010 um 14:58 schrieb Stipe Tolj: >> >>> Am 30.11.2010 14:45, schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri: >>>> That's extremely unflexible imho. If you want to get kannel to log alone >>>> without being cluttered with other daemon's logs, you're out of luck. >>>> >>>> In our case, we'd like to use it for remote logging, so we'd use one of >>>> the "user" facilities to get kannel and _only_ kannel on it, directed to >>>> kannel-only log files. >>>> >>>> I don't see the problem on allowing the extra flexibility. It's definitely >>>> useful for our scenario at least. >>> >>> yep, agree... we keep the default as Alexander suggest as 'LOG_DAEMON' >>> facility, >>> but provide the capabilities to extend what we want. Right? >>> >>> Stipe >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Kölner Landstrasse 419 >>> 40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany >>> >>> tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF) >>> http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/ >>> >>> mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >
