On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 09:09 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > 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).
Yes, ideally there would be a transaction state tied to the debug, allowing expressions like "comm I/O on ICAP transactions", but that's not what we have today. > 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. Yes. > 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. Sounds like the best that can be done with what we have today. Regards Henrik
