Makes sense. Still it would be nice to be able to run core_error_log
conditionally. So that I can send my logs to spread, send an SNMP trap and
not log to disk, because I confirmed I succeeded in one of the first two.
That's why I think it should be run last (except perhaps a fatal level error
logger at the head of the bunch). The point is that I don't want to
unconditionally send logs to /dev/null, but only if I succeeded in sending
them with my user-defined method.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command
line?]
> On Monday 27 August 2001 08:14, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic'
type
> > log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying
'Try
> > and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'.
> > Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want
to
> > be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3
> > copies.
>
> I understand this. The problem is that a RUN_FIRST removes any level
> of redundancy. A RUN_ALL allows the server admin to setup as much
> redundancy as they want. If you want to log to just spread, then set
> ErrorLog to /dev/null. If it is a RUN_FIRST, and I want to log to spread,
> and send an SNMP trap whenever I get a critical error, how do I do that?
>
> This needs to be a RUN_ALL.
>
> Ryan
>
> > The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It
would
> > be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk
if
> > and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging
module
> > return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook
where I
> > did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs
> > fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the
handlers
> > run.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command
> > line?]
> >
> > > On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> > > > For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to
> >
> > turn
> >
> > > > off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a
> > > > distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it
> > > > would be better
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override
the
> > > > internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's
> > > > safety/flexibility concerns better?
> > >
> > > There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am
> >
> > concerned that
> >
> > > if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism,
> >
> > then
> >
> > > you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever.
> > >
> > > Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any
redundancy
> > > in the system at all.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
