You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> on 2008/01/30 14:16:50 UTC
Re: svn commit: r616404 - /incubator/qpid/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/Connector.cpp
aconway@apache.org wrote:
> Author: aconway
> Date: Tue Jan 29 07:49:55 2008
> New Revision: 616404
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=616404&view=rev
> Log:
> Log peer address with SEND/RECV messages.
>
> - QPID_LOG(trace, "SENT [" << this << "]: " << frame);
> + QPID_LOG(trace, "SENT (" << aio->getSocket().getPeerAddress() << "): " << frame);
While I agree that the peer address is more informative, it doesn't help
distinguish between multiple connections in an application to the same
broker.
Adding the local address would help this, but might add a bit too much
noise to every log entry. Either that could be cut back to be just the
local port or we could keep using this in the log entries and log both
local and remote addresses once when the connection is established.
Thoughts?
Re: svn commit: r616404 - /incubator/qpid/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/Connector.cpp
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Alan Conway wrote:
> Adding just the local port is probably the best solution. It has the
> added advantage that it allows you to easily correlate frames on client
> and server since both will contain the client's port number. Something
> like: (127.0.0.1:5672 59007)
Agreed and done (I put the local port before the remote address as
left-to-right seemed somehow more intuitive to me!).
Re: svn commit: r616404 - /incubator/qpid/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/Connector.cpp
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
> aconway@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: aconway
>> Date: Tue Jan 29 07:49:55 2008
>> New Revision: 616404
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=616404&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Log peer address with SEND/RECV messages.
>>
>
>> - QPID_LOG(trace, "SENT [" << this << "]: " << frame);
>> + QPID_LOG(trace, "SENT (" << aio->getSocket().getPeerAddress() <<
>> "): " << frame);
>
> While I agree that the peer address is more informative, it doesn't help
> distinguish between multiple connections in an application to the same
> broker.
>
> Adding the local address would help this, but might add a bit too much
> noise to every log entry. Either that could be cut back to be just the
> local port or we could keep using this in the log entries and log both
> local and remote addresses once when the connection is established.
>
> Thoughts?
Adding just the local port is probably the best solution. It has the
added advantage that it allows you to easily correlate frames on client
and server since both will contain the client's port number. Something
like: (127.0.0.1:5672 59007)
Using a pointer makes the logs hard to process with grep and the like,
since you can't interpret a log line in isolation, you have to go back
and find the original connect line (and you have to still *have* the
original connect line)