Hi folks, Thanks for the input on the logging question.
> From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > From a user perspective, this is what I would want to see. > > On Linux --log-output has options of > > stderr, stdout, syslog > > On Windows --log-output has options of > > stderr, stdout, eventlog > > Then on Linux, the > > --syslog-name NAME (lt-qpidd) Name to use in syslog > messages > --syslog-facility LOG_XXX (LOG_DAEMON) Facility to use in syslog > messages > > options appear in the list where they are. > > and on Windows > > any options for event-log are added. This sounds good. > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:04 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > ... > > I see two ways to handle this, and I am asking for your > discussion and > > advice. > > > > 1. Remove the 'syslog' value from --log-output and add a > new option to > > the platform-specific set; maybe --log-syslog yes|no > > > > 2. Leave the options as they are and specialize just the syslog > > handling inside the code. > > > > 3. Don't try to split into common and platform-specific > options; just > > maintain completely separate option sets for each platform > even though > > 90% of the code will be identical. At least to start... > > I think I'd personally prefer a slightly different approach (well a > variant on #1 I suppose): Introduce a new option which is an explicit > logging sink. > > The essential problem with the current command line interface > is that it > overloads the filename with stuff not related to files at all. So what > I'd suggest is something like an extra option to direct > logging output. > > Something like: > > --log-to <logfile | syslog | eventlog | ...> > > then change the option name a bit for consistency with the log-to > option: This sort of rearranges the problem - I think you're on to something with the comment that mixing generic and specific logging sink names is a bit problematic, but I'm nto really up for rearranging things at this point - I have a big hunk of Windows things to get in before I can rework too much existing (and working) code. > --logfile-out FILE (...) > > Actually I'm not 100% we really need option to redirect the syslog > output, but that's a different discussion. > > I'd guess this might be most easily implemented by > introducing a plugin type architcture for log sinks. A like the plugin sort of idea, but I can't justify the effort at this point getting ready for M4. I am going to move the --log-output to the platform-specific options. We can revisit this at a later point if there's further interest or problems. Thanks! -Steve
