From: Michael Lacher (michael.lacher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-05 03:42:43
Austin Bingham wrote:
[snip]
>
> I think that defining a mandatory set of attributes is going to rub a
> lot of users (me included) the wrong way. My sense is that we will be
> better served by a system that let's you dynamically (and easily!)
> associate attributes with a message. Moreover, it needs to be simple
> to do that on a global or per entity (e.g. channel, sink, message)
> basis. We could provide the kinds of formatters you describe with
> the library as they have obvious general utility.
>
> My main point, though, is that no mandated set of attributes will
> please everyone and may well be a huge point of contention.
>
>> As for optional attributes I think, it's better to leave them on
>> user's behalf since it's too difficult to figure out the correct set
>> of them and implement suitable interface to operate them in the
>> unified and convenient way. But, surely, the library should leave an
>> easy way to implement them.
>
> I agree with this completely, except that (per above) it should apply
> to all attributes :)
>
I totally agree to that. Except maybe that the actual log text might be
mandatory or at least included by default.
Michael