In article <88f96e46-e6bb-a7ef-bebb-5588ef6cd...@gmx.ch>, Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote: > > On 2020-06-02 17:48, Tony Mountifield wrote: > > In article <94191802-6c9c-bdab-615b-001786a2a...@gmx.ch>, > > Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote: > >> > On 2019-11-16 03:29, Fourhundred Thecat wrote: > > >> > >> case LOGTYPE_SYSLOG: > >> snprintf(buf, size, "%s[%d]%s: %s:%d in %s: %s", > >> levels[msg->level], msg->lwp, call_identifier_str, > >> msg->file, msg->line, msg->function, msg->message); > >> term_strip(buf, buf, size); > >> break; > >> > >> case LOGTYPE_FILE: > >> snprintf(buf, size, "[%s] %s[%d]%s %s: %s", > >> msg->date, msg->level_name, msg->lwp, > >> call_identifier_str, msg->file, msg->message); > >> term_strip(buf, buf, size); > >> break; > >> > >> > >> so basically, it is hardcoded that logging to syslog adds extra > >> msg->line and msg->function. > >> > >> why would anybody do that ? > >> > >> This seems to me like a very unfortunate decision. > >> Is there a reason for this ? > >> Am I missing something? > > > > But someone with a different opinion than yours might well say "Why did > > they decide to omit the line number and function from the file logging? > > It's very useful information!" > > > > The beauty of open source is of course that if you feel strongly enough, > > you can modify the source file before you build it, so it shows just > > what you want. > > I know I can patch asterisk and compile myself. I did it in the past, > and it is tedious to keep own patches and manage own packages. Its last > resort for me. > > Anyway, I am asking weather there is a reason why this particular > decision was taken. To me perosnally it seems like idiocy, but I am not > developer and maybe I am missing something.
I have no idea, I'm not part of Asterisk development. I suspect that each logging type was added separately by different people, and it just happened. > If I am right, and this is a bug, then I would like to suggest this > should be fixed. I would agree that the fact the two logging types show different information is a bug, and you could report it at https://issues.asterisk.org/ However, the conversation would then be: should both logging types include line number and function? should both logging types omit them? should it be a configuration option in logger.conf whether they include or omit? if so, what should the default be, if not specified in logger.conf? > I am grateful for asterisk, and I want to help improve, even if in a > small way. Indeed! Cheers Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: t...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: t...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
