I think it is also good for general i18n effort
-----原始邮件-----
发件人: "Christopher Yeoh" <cbky...@gmail.com>
发送时间: 2014/1/28 11:02
收件人: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
主题: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposed Logging Standards
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
On 01/27/2014 09:07 AM, Macdonald-Wallace, Matthew wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> I'm currently working on moving away from the "built-in" logging to use
> log_config=<filename> and the python logging framework so that we can start
> shipping to logstash/sentry/<insert other useful tool here>.
>
> I'd be very interested in getting involved in this, especially from a "why do
> we have log messages that are split across multiple lines" perspective!
Do we have many that aren't either DEBUG or TRACE? I thought we were
pretty clean there.
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> P.S. FWIW, I'd also welcome details on what the "Audit" level gives us that
> the others don't... :)
Well as far as I can tell the AUDIT level was a prior drive by
contribution that's not being actively maintained. Honestly, I think we
should probably rip it out, because I don't see any in tree tooling to
use it, and it's horribly inconsistent.
For the uses I've seen of it in the nova api code INFO would be perfectly fine
in place of AUDIT.
I'd be happy to help out with patches to cleanup the logging in n-api.
One other thing to look at - I've noticed with logs is that when something like
glanceclient code (just as an example) is called from nova,
we can get ERROR level messages for say image not found when its actually
perfectly expected that this will occur.
I'm not sure if we should be changing the error level in glanceclient or just
forcing any error logging in glanceclient when
called from Nova to a lower level though.
Chris
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
