Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-17 10:47:22

Alexander Arhipenko wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Andrey Semashev
> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> [...snip]
>>
>> True. I forgot about the "app" flag, indeed. However, what behavior were you
>> trying to achieve with this flag? It doesn't occur to me that it has much
>> sense with the rotating stream.
>>
> 
> Andrey, consider following use case.
> Application that runs on remote server (let's call that application
> slave) is started up
> several times per day by another process (master).
> Slave is writing logs to it's own log file (e.g., slave.log).
> This log file is monitored by administrator every day
> (notification email with attached latest log files is sent to him).
> In case if using log rotation without 'app' flag, slave.log will be
> overwritten every time slave is starting up,
> so valuable log records could be overlooked by administrator.

So you want to have logs from several runs in one file, right?

> Also, according to my own intuition and to another logging libaries
> (python.logging),
> the first log file in rotation sequence, e.g. file.log.0, usually
> contains latest log records.
> And the last file (e.g., file.log.N), contains the earliest ones.
> It will be nice to see such behavior in rotating_ofstream.

That is a possible naming scheme, while I find it counter-intuitive. 
Maybe because I'm not familiar with python. Or maybe because it doesn't 
compose well with naming schemes that use date and time.

All in all, I have extending rotation flexibility in the library TODO list.