On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Jan Kaluža <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/23/2013 09:13 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Ivan Zhakov <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 23 September 2013 22:35, Jeff Trawick <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > In 2.4 the syslog logging wouldn't be implemented as a provider, >> the ErrorLog directive parser would be different, new structure >> fields would be at the end, but otherwise it shouldn't be hard :) >> > >> >> It could be theoretical backward compatibility issue if someone uses >> log named the same as some provider. Why not add new directive >> LogProvider? >> >> >> I've never seen a log file within the ServerRoot directory. The risk of >> such a configuration and it matching a provider actually loaded seems >> low enough (and with an easy enough workaround) to forgo having a >> different configuration directives between 2.4/next-major-release. >> >> But maybe >> >> ErrorLogProvider provider-name arg1-n >> >> would be nicer anyway (same in all applicable branches). >> >> > I used ErrorLog directive to stay compatible with current syslog > configuration, but if you don't see problems with breaking "ErrorLog > syslog" in trunk, it should be OK to use different directive for providers. > > I'm not sure I see some new compatibility problems with use of ErrorLog > directive (except the problem when admin tries to name his log file the > same name as already used by some provider, but this problem is here > already with "syslog"). > > Btw, what would be the semantic of "ErrorLog" when "ErrorLogProvider" gets > implemented? Will it be just alias for "ErrorLogProvider file > logs/error_log"? In this case, if we don't mind so much about backward > compatibility in trunk, I still think just "ErrorLog" directive for setting > both provider and arguments is cleaner solution. That's fine. Note that when using a separate ErrorLogProvider, a directive like ErrorLog (belonging to a particular provider) would just be ignored if ErrorLogProvider was set to something non-default, just as DbmErrorLogParams might be ignored by the implementing module if ErrorLogProvider was set to the default. > > >> -- >> Ivan Zhakov >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Born in Roswell... married an alien... >> http://emptyhammock.com/ >> > > Regards, > Jan Kaluza > > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
