> Neal H Walfield wrote:
> >
> > Can you justify why this is better than syslog?
>
> It is not inherently better than syslogd. It does, however,
> serve a slightly different class of process. I am not opposed in
> principle to adapting syslog to handle Hurd/Mach ports as
> opposed to Unix domain sockets or UDP sockets. The current
> implementations of syslogd I have been exposed to assume that
> the caller is sending information out on Unix sockets, UDP
> sockets which in my opionion are not the appropriate vessels
> for logging Hurd events.
Both unix domain sockets and udp ports are just ports with a bit of
metadata.
> This is particularly true if the
> socket translator is to send messages. Using syslog as the
> basis for an implementation is probably a good idea, but in
> its present state, I don't think it is usable in general for
> hurd translators.
What do you mean by "its present state." And if syslogd is lacking,
would it not, perhaps, be better to try to extend it?
> The second point is that many of the hurd translators do not use
> syslog (perhaps out of concern for the issues I raise above).
If you look at the TODO list, you will see:
* syslogify everything !
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
