httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manoj Kasichainula <>
Subject Re: reworking of cronolog as mod_cronolog (or folding into mod_log_config)
Date Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:53:16 GMT
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 09:55:38PM +0000, Andrew Ford wrote:
> I have offered cronolog to the Apache project before and the offer
> still stands

It actually seems reasonable as an addition for 2.0. I personally
don't see any advantage to bundling a bunch of stuff into the Apache
tarball, but other people do.

> but also I have had a number of requests to rework
> cronolog as an Apache module.  The idea seems logical to me and it
> would fit neatly into the existing syntax.  That is if the log
> filename (for TransferLog, ErrorLog or CustomLog) contained '%'
> characters, but did not start with a vertical bar, it would be treated 
> as a filename template for rotating log files.

Wouldn't that mean that the children would be responsible for opening
log files when they get "rotated"? Sounds dangerous; any break-in to
an httpd child process would mean that the log files are also

> Folding into Apache would avoid the overhead of having multiple
> cronolog processes on busy sites.

OK, I'm not very familiar with the logging code, but I thought that
there was only a single process started by the piped logger, because
it's started and restarted in the parent. But no matter what, I still
wouldn't think the cronolog process would be that CPU-intensive.

> What do people think of the idea (and that of the cronolog program being
> taken into the corpus of contributed software).

I'll be the substitute-Dean here; I like the componentization that
piped logs give us and prefer them to adding extra code to the logging
modules to handle all the cases people are interested in.

I am far more worried about the security problems this could cause,

> Currently cronolog is covered by either the GPL or Artistic license,
> but I would be happy to assign copyright to the Apache Group and
> have it covered by the Apache license.

Sounds interesting to me, assuming other people that have contributed
to your code but not assigned copyright have done the same.

Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com -

View raw message