On 12/13/2015 01:46 PM, Christos Tsantilas wrote:
> On 12/13/2015 11:16 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> * please make the codes shorter. We still have to work within a
>> relatively short line length for the entire log format.
> Well, I did not fix it in the new patch. We need the other developers
> opinion.
>
> The short names does not improve the speed or something in operation.
> However they confuses system admins when trying to read a logformat
> strings.
> I am suggesting to keep the long names for logformat codes as is.
I agree with Christos: Short codes are best for computers and, arguably,
frequently-used command-line options typed by humans. Long names offer
better UX in most other cases and should be the default approach for new
logformat %codes.
If Squid cannot support long [wrapped] directives, let's discuss and
remove that limitation instead of trying harder and harder to cramp a
growing list of various options into a too-short internal buffer. We
ought to eventually support something similar to this example:
logformat myFormat \
%ts.%03tu \ # record timestamp [seconds.milliseconds]
%6tr \ # response time; TODO: Ask George about units!
%>a \ # XXX: our script does not handle IPv6 addresses yet
%ssl::>cert_subject \ # TODO: Should we log the issuer?
... many more %codes, including the newer long ones ...
However, improving handling of long [wrapped] lines is a separate issue,
with its own discussion points (like supporting the combination of a
comment and line continuation). The proposed feature will work fine
without those improvements, even if it makes those improvements even
more desirable.
Thank you,
Alex.
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
