Interesting idea, but...

Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:03 UTC (Sun) by tshow (subscriber, #6411)
In reply to: Interesting idea, but... by vrfy
Parent article: That newfangled Journal thing

Hmm. What's been put forth so far has strongly implied a replacement for syslog, but you're describing it as a supplement.

At any rate, if the plan is to have a properly documented format for the log data when the project hits 1.0, I withdraw my objection; my concern was that it appeared that undocumented was the overall plan, not simply a consequence of the early development phase.

to post comments

Interesting idea, but...

Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:19 UTC (Sun) by vrfy (guest, #13362) [Link]

The format might be stabilized when it's reasonable stable, there is no version number, or any specific plan to tell now. We will get there over time. Until that, nothing should expect to be able to read/write the raw files directly. They need to get dumped with journalctl, or read with the library API, that's all what we can promise now.

The classic syslog model is not touched at all. If anything relies on any of the syslog features, the format, the remote logging, the files, it should run syslog like it always did.

This is something that runs on the local machine, and serves as the base for tools that need to make decisions or provide the 'history' of services. If syslog is the model to look at, journald is just a proxy.

The journald design is network-aware, but in no way network-transparent. All that can be done pretty efficiently by additional tools, but these tools will probably not be part of the core installation.