httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Lopez <>
Subject Re: Logs and logs and logs [oh my!]
Date Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:57:18 GMT

> > I'm not convinced it is any simpler to have one directive with a
> > whole bunch of options as opposed to a simple version of a directive,
> > which does what most people want, and then another one that lets them
> > do the complex stuff.

The problem is not only having TransferLog vs CustomLog, but also with the
many syntax options available that make the whole thing confusing for first
time users.
Below if my initial comment to httpd-docs that started this thread:

"Many of the users, however just want it "to work". They dont want to read
that you can do something three different ways or about some obscure cases.
They just want a step by step guide on what they need to do.

Just take a look at the logging directives for example:

LogFormat allows you to have a logging format and a nickname or
just take a nickname or just take a logging format.
If you have the logging format and hte nickname, then it does not have any
secondary effects. If you have only the nicknmae or the format then it will
set the format for the next TransferLog directive. TransferLog is just a
special case of CustomLog.
Then in turn CustomLog can accept either a format string or a nickname.

This allows you much more flexibility but it obscures how to just log stuff
to a file, which is what most people want. It will be much more easier if:

LogFormat only takes two arguments, format and nickname
CustomLog only takes a nickname argument, previously defined on a LogFormat
TransferLog is removed, since is a subset of CustomLog."

The full functionality is preserved for power users and it is simpler to
document and use for normal users. It is alittle bit more verbose, but
that's all.
I would also rename CustomLog to REquestLog or simply Log, but that is


View raw message