Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 09:32:37 BST
From: Andrew Wilson <andrew@www.elsevier.co.uk>
Message-Id: <9504200832.AA02424@www.elsevier.co.uk>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: hmmm...
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


>  Brian responded
> 
> > No, I think for now we should just not log the second response, the "real 
> > object" that was returned.  For 401 access for example, I know that 
> > 401.html will always be returned, so logging it is redundant.  
> 
> What about the other error/problem redirects, and regular redirects ?
> should we not log those too ?
> 
> Is it also redundant to log
>    /missing
> when I know that   /missing/  is almost sure to follow a second
> later ?
> 
> 
> You seem to be saying there's too much information there. I'd
> disagree. If some of the info isn't of interest to you, ignore it.

This is where I'm sitting too.  There just isn't enough information in
the logs to be of any damned use to anyone.  The current state of affairs
(which Brian objects to) isn't really what I'm looking for, and seems,
in all fairness, to be a kludge.  It's feasible to do per-user
tracking (buisness & marketing types 'lerrrve' this stuff) by analysing a
more complete logfile, but we're not there yet.

Is it too much work to add a support/apache2common script?  Or would other
behaviour break if we removed the patch that added the additional log-entry?

Buh.

> robh
> 

Ay.

     Andrew Wilson	     URL: http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/User/Andrew.Wilson/
Elsevier Science, Oxford   Office: +44 01865 843155    Mobile: +44 0589 616144