On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 01 May 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> I would like to see some buy-in for the API changes. I don't have >> any other concerns about committing. (Logging is such a part of >> main-line that many more people will see the changes in action >> while working on other issues, giving ample opportunity for >> necessary improvements/adjustments before 2.4 GA.) > > Sure. I agree that there should be enough time to fix the details > after this has gone into trunk. > >> > I think, instead of touching every file, it would be possible to >> > have a field in the module struct listing the filenames belonging >> > to a module. With some clever coding it should even be possible >> > to do this without having to do string compares during the >> > logging. But I don't think that this would be a better solution. >> > For example, there can be duplicate filenames (we already have >> > two util.c files). > > After thinking a bit more about this idea, I don't think that it would > work after all. It would require having the name of the source file > that includes some header file available in the header file. But there > is only __FILE__ and that expands to the name of the header file when > used in a header. I now believe we really have to touch every source > file to somehow declare which module it belongs to. And if we have to > do that in any case, defining AP_MODULE_VAR seems to be ok. > >> For selection by module, does the facility need to be more granular >> than simply using the canonical source file name -- the name of the >> file that declares the module struct? > > I am not sure what you mean. Somehow it must be clear what module is > to be used for logging.
I just meant: Is it okay that, for example, the foo module is always known as mod_foo.c as far as logging concerned, whether the current source file is mod_foo.c, foo_cmds.c, foo_proc.c, etc.? And you wouldn't be able to configure differenting logging for mod_foo.c logging vs. foo_proc.c logging? (It is okay with me, and perhaps that's what you were planning anyway.) > > Or do you mean that the user may want to have finer log config > granularity than by module, e.g. for mod_ssl or for the core module? > That may be a nice extension in the future but for now configuring the > log level by module is enough. I didn't want finer granularity.
