On 29 Nov 2004, at 04:39, Robert Spier wrote:
I think plugins are a little too heavy for this.
Why? We have config plugins - are they too heavy?
config and logging is orthogonal. If logging breaks, you don't find out that other things broke. We also tend to do a lot of logging.
At a first approximation:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/projects/qpsmtpd$ grep -r -- '->config' * | wc -l 65 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/projects/qpsmtpd$ grep -r -- '->log' * | wc -l 206
plugins are, by their nature, fragile. I'm just not sure I like my logging to be fragile.
I'm fairly sure we can make it "safe" to the point that if all logging plugins break we log to STDERR at a minimum.
Log::Dispatch has a plugin architecture, and it seems to me that we should just use our own plugin architecture for this.
(there's nothing stopping you from writing a Log::Dispatch logging plugin :-)
I think we need Ask to mediate on this one though.
Matt.
