Re: LogLevels revisited..

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

Perhaps you missed my original commit of this and the ensuing 
discussion. (mainly with myself)

Providing backward support for the old logging functions is 
difficult at best if we take this to a per-request level (which 
would be necessary to support per-dir). I agree with your 
reasoning, but I personally could not find a clear path to provide 
backward support for the old functions and pass a request_rec.
My original commit provided per-dir configurability.

As for your second suggestion, neat, but grep really accomplishes 
the same thing. I'm not sure the added complexity is worth it. 
*shrug*

There are other problems with LogLevels that I don't like. If 
someone wants to discuss them, let me know. Response to previous 
comments has been missing.



>     Two ideas I've had about the loglevels thing that I'd like to bounce
>     off the list:
> 
>     1. Make it per-dir configurable (RSRC_CONF||ACCESS_CONF), and
>     2. Add a "log level-n regardless" ability.
> 
>     The first I think is self-explanatory.  Why?  To debug issues with
>     specific realms of the server without logging stuff from others that
>     don't have any problems.
> 
>     The second probably could use an explanation.  What I mean is the
>     ability to tell the server "Log up to level n (what LogLevels
>     currently does), but also log anything at level x".  So you have the
>     ability to just log APLOG_ERR stuff as part of normal operations,
>     but could turn on logging of APLOG_DEBUG without also getting
>     WARNING, NOTICE, and INFO.
> 
>     I realise this is related to the logmask idea I mentioned back at
>     the beginning, but I still like the idea.  I think the combination
>     of these two could really aid debugging of the server and its
>     configuration.
> 
>     Just some thoughts..  We're in feature-freeze, so these are for
>     1.3+.
> 
>     #ken    P-)}