On 6 Nov 2017, at 15:03, Jim Mellander wrote:
> How about a user redef'able format string for doubles in logs? Even
> more
> flexible would be to make it a function. Let the user decide the
> format
> they need, and adapt their scripts accordingly, with the default being
> the
> current
How about a user redef'able format string for doubles in logs? Even more
flexible would be to make it a function. Let the user decide the format
they need, and adapt their scripts accordingly, with the default being the
current behavior.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Thayer
On 11/6/17 8:16 AM, Seth Hall wrote:
> Right now, Bro will print scientific notation in JSON logs but we've
> always tended to avoid it in the standard Bro log format. What does
> everyone think about switching to allow scientific notation in the
> standard log format? Daniel recently did some
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 09:16 -0500, you wrote:
> versions of awk and they all support scientific notation
I'm wondering if that's true for other log parsers as well. The main
thing I'd want to avoid is breaking people's existing scripts. We
could make it an option?
Robin
--
Robin Sommer *
Right now, Bro will print scientific notation in JSON logs but we've
always tended to avoid it in the standard Bro log format. What does
everyone think about switching to allow scientific notation in the
standard log format? Daniel recently did some exploration of various
versions of awk and
