Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 à 12:41 +0100, nap a écrit : > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Laurent Guyon > <laurent.gu...@adelux.fr> wrote: > Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 à 11:33 +0100, Hartmut Goebel a > écrit : > > Am 06.01.2011 09:52, schrieb nap: > > > Yep, the broker way is cool for getting a common log file, > but in the > > > begining, got local logs to see what is bad in the > > > configuration/architecture can be useful. I think I'll add > a > > > "local_log" parameter in the etc/*d.ini files with void > default value. > > > So if the user want local log, he just need to enable it > (so you see > > > why a log module don't load for example ;) ). > > IMHO this yet another config variable is a bad idea. The > standard > > logging module already delivers all we need. > > > > The current remote logging will become a logging handler, > logging can be > > configured in the daemons config file. Easy to understand > for everybody. > > Local and remote logging can be switched on and of as > desired, > > log-levels can be configured per handler. Logs can be > filtered, etc. And > > all this is for free :-) > > > > The remote handler may be build on top of the current remote > logging > > facility. Or can be enhanced to not format the message by it > self, but > > pass it on the toe remote side to be filtered there. > > > > My idea is to switch to *completely* the standard logging > module. No > > more print-statements anywhere. Everything is going via > logging. > > > +1, the best and smarter way to go imho ;) > I don't the he logging point. The main thing/problem here is "what if > the daemon is not initialized" ? Logging/print/what ever don't change > anything here. Use the logging module, or a simple print don't change > anything that the user need: > *global log -> brok module because all logs are broks in daemons > *local logs for "debuging" purpose, only and if only the user want it. > He want to debug a offline daemon too. And the only place where we can > put this log place is in the ini file. > > After, a print or a logging I don't care. Print is good for what we > are doing, I do not see what problem the loggin will solve here. If it > solve one yes, it's available in every python since years, so it can > be a good replacement. But it won't solve the ini local_log thing. > There are 2 differents problems. >
In fact, "all we need is logs" (lalala la la ^^), whatever the solution used ;) For me, the need of local logs is not only for debugging purposes, but for logging normal working messages (some check result have been processed, some notification have been sent, error reporting...). Imho, every daemon needs a local log, because it's imposible to rely only on remote logs ;) Laurent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Shinken-devel mailing list Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
