On Friday 14 May 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> 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.)
Yes, I think that's ok. In any case I would like to hide the mod_foo.c from the user as far as possible and use the name of the module struct (minus the trailing _module). The LogLevel directive in my patch already accepts foo, foo_module, and mod_foo.c as names for the module.
