On 07/19/2016 10:36 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 20/07/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote: >>>> 2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries: >>>>> Is this patch going to include the new config option to prevent logging >>>>> the new things? or do it in a followup?
>>>> For now we are not planning to add this option(that is why initially the >>>> patch did not perform logging for "no-bytes" connections). >>>> Probably there should be a (new?) ACL, controlling number of received >>>> bytes(instead of separate option). If so, implementing this requires >>>> solving non-trivial separate task. >>> Okay. I was just thinking an on/off directive for now. So people could >>> restore the old behaviour, or go ahead with the new logs. >> An ACL is the right way to control what gets logged ... >> >> Which ACL(s) to add depends on the final version of the new logging >> code, requires careful thinking, and may require non-trivial >> development. We want to keep all of that outside this project scope. >> Amos, if we assume that this patch does not add new ACLs or directives, >> are you happy with what it logs now or do you want Eduard to exclude >> something? > Hmm. Good point. > > The 'problem' with ACLs was not the lack of checks, it is that the URL > ones we already have use exclusively the HttpRequest URL and complain > when one is not existing. It might be easier to extend those to use the > error:* URL, in the same way the log itself is getting it for display. Agreed: It might be easier. The point is that whether the problem is the lack of ACLs, imperfect implementation of existing ACLs, a combination of both, or something else, it is a non-trivial question that should be carefully researched and answered in another project IMO. If we assume that this patch does not add new ACLs or directives, and does not adjust existing ones, are you happy with what it logs now or do you want Eduard to exclude something? >> Thus, we have the following naming options: >> >> 1) error:accept-user-connection and annotate_user_connection >> 2) error:accept-client-connection and annotate_client >> 3) error:accept-client-connection and annotate_client_connection > My inbox(es) contain no mention of these annotate_client / annotate_user > you speak of being discussed. And my memory is also drawing a bank right > now. http://lists.squid-cache.org/pipermail/squid-dev/2016-July/006146.html > I'm asking for "error:accept-client-connection" Sounds good to me. Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
