On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 12:41 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This sounds like an exciting project -- while I recognize the concerns > > other have expressed about complexity, I think that complexity can be > > managed if done carefully. I'm not sure if you've looked at Apple's > > extended syslog, which among other things, includes a binary log file format > > making it more mechanically searched and managed, do take a look if you > > haven't. > > > ... and I'm not just saying this to be ornery, but what about test log file > formats is not mechanically searchable? Note that I'm not playing the XML > card here (I'm not an XML fan) but the only real draw of a binary format (to > me) is a small amount of innate compression (numbers and dates in binary > form) and the ability to have field separators that are not part of the > printable character set. UN*X has a strong tradition of text files that > work around these two limitations in a variety of ways --- and UN*X tools > are built with these assumptions. There's a strong set of reasons to > consider retaining text formats and continuing to improve our tools around > them.
I don't think anyone has suggested replacing text with a binary format. Just providing an alternative for those who choose to use it. robert. > One way to strengthen the syslog format is to have syslog enforce a format > _and_ enforce that whatever field separator is chosen cannot be written > within a field. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
