Jon Arney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At the risk of beating a dead horse and annoying you all > terribly much, I would like to submit some of my thinking > on a Hurd logging facility. Feel free to tear this to > shreads, but I think the discussion should be started > and work begun on a solution to the problem of what to > do about a hurd logging facility.
I need to read the proposal more carefully, but for now I only have one question: Have you considered using the ordinary io_write rpc for sending log messages? There are at least two advantage with that: You can easily open the logging facility of the stderr of any process. And if you do so, you also get messages like assertions failures, that aren't aware of the logging facility, for free. In particular, you could provide it as the stderr of a filesystem, and have translators on that filesystem inherit it by default. Earlier, it was proposed to have stderr of the root filesystem be directed to he console. Thomas argued that was a really bad idea, and he's probably right. But I still think it would be desirable to use stderr for diagnostic messages from translators and other daemons. Regards, /Niels _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
