BIND 10 #736: Implement logging configuration
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Tue Jun 7 11:14:50 UTC 2011
#736: Implement logging configuration
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jelte
stephen | Status: reviewing
Type: | Milestone:
enhancement | Sprint-20110614
Priority: | Resolution:
critical | Sensitive: 0
Component: | Sub-Project: DNS
logging | Estimated Difficulty: 7.0
Keywords: | Total Hours: 0
Defect Severity: N/A |
Feature Depending on Ticket: |
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by stephen):
* owner: stephen => jelte
Comment:
Reviewed commit 542a15d604018ea73a5a28f26b30b92fb668e399
'''src/bin/cfgmgr/plugins/b10logging.py'''
As each logger should have a name, perhaps it would be useful to include
its name in any error message?
The check for "filename" occurs whether or not the destination is a file
(contrary to what the error message says).
There could be a check that if "facility" is present, the output is to
syslog.
Question: Although the logging code makes the distinction between "file",
"console" and "syslog", is there a need for the user-visible configuration
to do so? Could we not remove the "console" destination and have it that
file output to "stdout" or "stderr" routes output to the console? (In
fact, how about replacing "filename", "stream" and "facility" with
"output", and interpret the value of "output" in a destination-specific
way?)
'''src/lib/config/ccsession.h'''
ModuleCCSession constructor: the documentation for the arguments
"command_handler" and "start_immediately" is not in the correct place in
the header.
Is the "handle_logging" argument to the ModuleCCSession constructor a
temporary construct? (Under what circumstances will this module not take
care of logging configuration?)
'''src/lib/config/config_data.cc'''
findListOrMapSubSpec: Is, strictly speaking, the header correct? It finds
the inner-most _spec if the specification is nested.
findItemInSpecList: (throwing an exception when nothing is found.)
Presumably not finding the element is an unexpected occurrence? Does this
make the handling of optional elements more awkward? Would returning a
null pointer be better?
find_spec_part: not in the changes made here, but would use of tokens()
(in util/strutil.{h,cc}) simplify the code?
Comment: again not in the changes here, but some of the functions in the
file are either in the anonymous namespace or are declared static. This
means they do not have unit tests.
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/736#comment:10>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list