Bleh, ANOTHER repo? We have so many already... but I see what the big picture is. Would this add a new layout in Core? Maybe we should just start with that... then grow...
Gary On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I mean in the logging services project. So it'd be a new repo. > > On 19 October 2017 at 10:48, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > When you say “another component in the project” do you mean logging > > services project or log4j? I’d prefer to see you do this in a separate > repo > > or at least a branch until we understand what it looks like. If it is > going > > to apply to many things it probably makes sense to be a separate repo. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > For generic structured records, I'd probably go with Avro or Thrift > since > > > LogEvents have a lot of standard fields with only a few optional > map-like > > > structures. For optimized log appending, the binary format was proposed > > as > > > a way to append quickly and without garbage IIRC. > > > > > > On 19 October 2017 at 10:21, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> What about BSON? > > >> > > >> Gary > > >> > > >> On Oct 19, 2017 08:41, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I don't have the ticket on hand, but a few months ago, Remko > suggested > > a > > >>> binary logging format that would allow for super fast appends of > > >>> log-specific information along with companion files for additional > > >> metadata > > >>> not commonly used in log messages. I've been thinking about this > idea a > > >> bit > > >>> in relation to existing structured layouts (both textual and binary), > > >> and I > > >>> was thinking that it might be a useful format to standardize on for > all > > >> the > > >>> logging projects. > > >>> > > >>> What I'd like to propose is making another component in the project > > that > > >>> would contain a reference implementation of encoding and decoding the > > >>> format in Java, C++, .NET, and PHP (or as a C binding for PHP). > > >>> Potentially, this format could be inclusive with other logging > projects > > >>> like Logstash, Logback, Splunk, etc. > > >>> > > >>> What do you all think? Is this a good idea? Or would this be > > duplicating > > >>> effort from other standards already? > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
