vince kraemer wrote On 08/09/06 16:56,:
> Jan Luehe wrote:
>
>> Vince,
>>
>> vince kraemer wrote On 08/09/06 16:04,:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Those changes were made in response to
>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=544, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>>
>>> That issue implies that developers want to be able to read the
>>> access log while doing development. (At least it does to me).
>>>
>>> If the access logging is turned off (by default), should we revert
>>> the changes made to address 544, so the cost to someone going into
>>> production is lower "out-of-the-box"?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that would be the right thing to do, because anybody
>> turning access
>> logging on would expect immediate updates. If we reverted the change
>> you're referring
>> to, we would again disappoint developers' expecations about
>> immediate updates
>> once access logging has been turned on.
>
>
> But haven't we already disappointed developers by having the access
> log turned off by default?...
I think regardless of whether access logging is on or off by default,
once it is
on (either by default or by configuration), developers expect immediate
updates.
I think we need to do a survey of how useful access logging is during
development,
and how much of a performance penalty people are willing to pay for it.
Tomcat disables it by default, and nobody has ever complained about it.
Jan
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> vbk
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>