| |||||||||||||
They should be paying attention to the lumberjack projectThey should be paying attention to the lumberjack projectPosted Apr 16, 2012 6:21 UTC (Mon) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)In reply to: They should be paying attention to the lumberjack project by dlang Parent article: Toward more reliable logging
> RFC5424 lets you do flat name/value pairs, but it turns out that it's extremely valuable to be able to have more structure than that.
Having more structure than that adds too much complexity to be worthwhile. You can approximate structure using keys.with.dots or numbers --- e.g., filename1=foo filename2=bar. Hierarchy adds far more complexity to makes indexing and browsing, very common cases, than it adds to the very rare log message with repeated units.
Can you give me an example of a situation in which hierarchical logging is clearly better than key-value pairs?
(Log in to post comments)
They should be paying attention to the lumberjack project Posted Apr 16, 2012 6:30 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Flattening hierarchy is extremely easy. So why not do it if you want?
And I don't really see how hierarchical data makes logging more complex. If you don't care about it, then simply ignore it.
They should be paying attention to the lumberjack project Posted Apr 17, 2012 16:34 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
It's really hard to describe transactions with simple keyval pairs.
They should be paying attention to the lumberjack project Posted Apr 17, 2012 16:36 UTC (Tue) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
Can you give me a concrete example?
|
|||||||||||||