http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3701
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-08-19 12:09 -------
It was about the part
> First, we will continue to have three "levels" of importance: die(), warn(),
> and dbg(). Later, we can consider an additional info() level between warn()
> and dbg(). Later.
The syslog code I have already also logs debug messages if syslog is set to log
debug stuff. But thats one of the parts which need to be cleaned up because it
has always the debug performance penalty. I'm still not sure how to enable
syslog debugging though, enabling it only on -D would double the debugging, one
had to redirect stderr to /dev/null.
/me goes and reads the chat log...
You're actually mixing debugging and logging here yourself ;-)
I neither like the idea of of overloading the dbg() call to do ERROR and WARN
(then use log() instead but that has the disadvantage that we can't replace it
with a NOOP if debug is disabled) nor the dbg ("facility: foo") suggestion.
It's much cleaner (and probably faster because no RE match is needed) to do it
in two params.
For the level, using different functions for each level is probably the best
way (IMO). I'm not sure if we need syslog's plaethora of levels, I think the
following are enough (judging from syslog(3)):
die() -> EMERG (or ALERT?)
err() -> ERR (non-fatal error)
warn() -> WARNING
log() -> INFO
dbg() -> DEBUG
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
