From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Teigland Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:06:01 -0500 Subject: [Cluster-devel] logsys in fenced In-Reply-To: <20080626214328.GA10616@redhat.com> References: <20080625212155.GE18958@redhat.com> <20080626214328.GA10616@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080627150601.GA19105@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:43:28PM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > I have yet to study logsys enough to propose an alternative to the macro > > magic that's now isolated at the end of fd.h. > > I've done some logsys studying and discussed it with Steve Dake. The > logsys implementation and api is heavily geared toward use by openais > plugins (see the entire notion of "subsystems" that logsys is built > around). Using it from a general program like fenced, not an > openais-plugin, makes the mismatch painfully clear. > > So, I don't hold out much hope that logsys is going to be useful for > non-plugins. But, just because we don't share the actual code that > performs logging, doesn't mean we can't have a uniform approach for > setting up logging properies for all cluster-related programs. That may > still be a worthwhile goal. The hope that I do still hold out for using logsys, is that we may be able to develop a simple syslog-like api for it, that would either parallel or sit above the plugin-oriented api that's there now. Steve claims that the syslog(3) api is fundamentally broken and didn't sound at all interested in the idea, but maybe others are more open to the idea?