From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079A8F453
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:35:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E6C2A1E84A
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:35:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:35:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A8F5048E46;
 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:35:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <cf4369be-147c-46a9-a332-6b3cbb18f500@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:35:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
References: <20230821111938.110298-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230821111938.110298-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.011 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] api: Outsource the logger
 initialization to the router
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:35:09 -0000

high level comment:

is proxmox-router really the right place for this?

IMHO where we want to log to should be decided by each binary/daemon/utility etc. and
not in the crate responsible for routing api requests?

It would at least be better if it would be it's own crate (e.g. proxmox-log ?)

I just say this because if we want to rework the logging from workers (which
live in proxmox-rest-server) this could complicate things
(though i did not spend too much time thinking what the possible issues could be)

whats your opinion on that @wolfgang, @thomas?