Re: logging in Kannel

>From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email protected]>
>To: dev-kannel <[email protected]>
>Subject: logging in Kannel
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:06:05 +0200
>
>HI,
>
>In order to make things more modular I have looked into the way
>logging is handled in Kannel. To my horrible discovery there are
>two kinds of logging in gwlib namely, access_log.[c|h] and
>log.[c|h].

I think these are meant to be roughly speaking billing log and debug
log.

>Accesslog is supposed to be a more simple API/function as the log
>version. I also noticed accesslog is not even used in the wap
>portion for instance.
>
>So first question is:
>Why is only in smsbox and bearerbox the accesslog used and not in
>the wap portion?? No one interested in the accesslog there??
>Or are people trying to get the access log part out of a generic
>logfile containing also many (potentially) debug logs.

This is a good question. Is someone using wapbox logs for billing ?

>second question:
>Would it not be easier to provide to the alog function only the Msg
>structure (and maybe an extra note) where the alog function
>determines the output format?? Now a 'const chat*fmt,....'
>is given.
>OK, this looses flexibility, but it can unify all the formats
>going into the accesslog. But a more common API would allow for
>multiple logpaths when this layered. Meaning firs the common
>logfunction is called in there depending on the module a different
>logfunction.

Logging formats for billing are usually *very* strict. Someone suggested
using CDR . One way to do this is indeed to let alog to do all formatting.
Only input would then be type of format used.

A



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com