On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Ittai Gilat wrote:
> In general this is a good suggestion, but as I understand, the
> valuable info is in the _binary_ log file. Once you've decided
> what you want to extract from this file, and then extract it with
> lx and ltrace, the output format serves only for display and
> presentation purposes.
Yes and no. "Yes" if you treat lx output as temporary output and rely
on binary logs. "No" if you delete binary logs after you've got
lx/trace output.
There is more information in binary logs than lx/trace can extract.
This fact can be a reason to keep binary logs around. However, the
same fact can be used by XML proponents -- everything that is not XML
is difficult to analyse by third-party software. In other words, if
binary logs are not converted to XML, then there is no reason to keep
them around even if they have more info than lx/trace output (because
nobody can use that extra info anyway).
> Can you elaborate more on "simply displaying collected numbers
> without ..." I don't understand what needs special formatting and
> annotation that cannot be done by processing the _binary_ log
> file.
I was trying to make a point that XML format alone does not solve the
presentation problem. Some tool still needs to be used to display the
collected data in a useful manner. It can be argued that CSS+XML and
similar solutions are the answer, but I do not think that a good
report can be made using maintainable collection of CSS or even XSL-FO
"programs".
> XML log files has a mush stronger added value for analysis, but
> making these files so big is a nuisance. I would prefer an
> independent program that will convert the _binary_ format to XML
> which I could use when in need.
... and that is what using XML as lx/ltrace output will give you if
implemented.
Thank you for the feedback!
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 12:00:18 MDT