glog -> syslog?

[Dustin Sallings]

Is there any interest in having syslog support for glog? I like the
glog inteface, but I send all my logs to syslog.

--
dustin

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

It's generally considered unfortunate that the syslog package was even included in the standard library.

I don't think changes will be welcome, as it's just then a reminder that it's there at all.

--
dustin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Sebastien Douche]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick <brad...@golang.org> wrote:
> It's generally considered unfortunate that the syslog package was even
> included in the standard library.

can you explain?



--
Sebastien Douche <sdo...@gmail.com>
Twitter: @sdouche / G+: +sdouche

[Rob Pike]

The package is a mess because of the sweeping incompatibilities between the syslog implementation on various systems. Its weight is much larger than its worth.

-rob

[Rob Pike]

Plus it's not even implemented on windows and the API exposes far too much syscall-like noise that doesn't feel remotely Go-like: syslog.LOG_LOCAL6 anyone?

In short, it's an ugly Unix-specific, non-portable, complex interface given our blessing as a standard API, and we shouldn't have let that happen.

-rob

[Shivakumar GN]

Does it make sense to include a heads-up in package documentation to dissuade people from using syslog (and other such cases)?

I was evaluating the syslog package for my usage. Based on above comments I seem to be better of with my own implementation since my need is for a specific OS only and limited in scope.

[Rob Pike]

If it works for you, use it. It's not going away.

-rob

[Dustin Sallings]

Brad Fitzpatrick <brad...@golang.org>
writes:

> It's generally considered unfortunate that the syslog package was even
> included in the standard library.
>
> I don't think changes will be welcome, as it's just then a reminder
> that it's there at all.

To be clear, it's not so much syslog support I want *in* glog, but I'd
like to use glog and syslog (or other log delivery mechanisms) together.

I currently do this with the built-in logger two ways:

1. By turning off timestamps and overriding the Writer at startup.
2. By using logexec[0]

It might be as simple as putting stderr into a variable and making the
timestamp optional (I was going to suggesting making the format
modifiable, but it seems like glog is pretty well beyond that).

Just being able to turn off timestamps might be enough, as I could at
least use logexec (which I often do anyway so I can log panics).


[0]: https://github.com/dustin/logexec

--
dustin