RE: [logs] Syslog payload format

From: Frank O'Dwyer (fodat_private)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 11:47:49 PST

  • Next message: Paul Robertson: "RE: [logs] Syslog payload format"

    Ron Ogle wrote:
    > It's not trivializing a problem to understand that nice and easy tends to
    > win over complete and complex.  All of the protocols that lost,
    > were highly
    > intellectual and covered all/most possible situations.  But they
    > didn't win
    > out, why?  They had too much baggage and were too complex to implement.
    Jeepers. What can you be talking about? Surely not the protocol discussed on
    this list, which can be just about expressed on the back of an envelope, if
    not a beermat.
    Or is it the APIs which can still give some improvement if existing code is
    simply recompiled or relinked against them?
    Complex to implement? We've already seen 2 or 3 independent announcements of
    running code in the space of just several weeks discussion which spanned the
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 12:01:11 PST