On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 12:28 +0100, Kinkie wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Alex Rousskov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the > > code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for > > those three areas? > > IMO the most intuitive approach would be to have one section for ICAP, > one for eCAP and the shared code should log at the highest level among > those of ICAP and eCAP
That's a good idea! The level can also change depending on the caller (e.g., use eCAP level if eCAP code is calling the shared code). > (this would require extending the logging code > somehow tho, for instance adding a third "behind the scenes" section). ... and maintaining its level whenever primary section levels change. I think this is the right direction, but probably too much custom but not-essential work for the first release. We need better scope- and context-specific debugging control anyway, and that feature will probably help here as well. Since opinions on this thread differed, I will probably start with three named constants for adaptation-related debugging sections. All constants will have the same value (93) for now. Since we do not have support for multiple adaptation services per HTTP message, most installations will use either ICAP or eCAP until that support is added. Thanks to everybody who commented on this thread, Alex.