BIND 10 #899: Implement logging using Log4cplus
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Mon May 23 18:19:24 UTC 2011
#899: Implement logging using Log4cplus
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: stephen
stephen | Status: reviewing
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: major | Sprint-20110531
Component: | Resolution:
logging | Sensitive: 0
Keywords: | Sub-Project: DNS
Defect Severity: N/A | Estimated Difficulty: 0.0
Feature Depending on Ticket: | Total Hours: 0
logging |
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):
* owner: vorner => stephen
Comment:
Hello
The patch is rather long one. But it is true it's quite simple, so I think
it is mostly OK, with some details:
* Why is the destructor of `DerivedLogger` explicitly mentioned and
virtual? As this class has no virtual functions (except for the inherited
ones), there's no need for one, the default will be virtual, because the
destructor of parent class is already virtual. Not that it would be wrong,
it just surprised me.
* I don't like including the linker flags everywhere. Is it really
needed? Because I think the whole purpose of our liblog is to hide the
internal implementation.
* This bit looks strange:
{{{
+
+/// Minimum/maximum debug levels. These are defined wi
+
}}}
(in `logger_level.h`)
* Isn't a class with only static methods a little bit misleading? Such
class is more like namespace, isn't it? (Not that it would produce
different code, in the end)
* specify exact directory of log4cplus library and headers ‒ this message
looks strange to me. Is it possible to specify inexact directory? And it
looks like they should live in one directory, but one is in lib, one in
include, I really wondered which one of them you mean for a short while.
Wouldn't „installation prefix of log4cplus“ be better?
* This FIXME in `Formatter::arg` was wrong, because the underlying
replace did replace all occurrences. However, what you describe isn't the
biggest problem (that is, actually, quite expected output). If we use the
original example, you would now get "42 42" (the first %1 gets replaced to
%2 and then both %2 get replaced), which is by no means expected output
(it is understandable once you get it, but it's surprising).
Also, as this brings a new dependency, I believe we need a changelog and a
heads-up email for developers to install it if they didn't already.
Thanks
--
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/899#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list