> On 8 Jun 2017, at 16:39, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:55:11PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: >>>> >>>> Not really worth all that discussion, your patch is ok :) >>> >>> Ah, I liked the discusison mostly because this would be a spice <-> >>> spice-gtk communication bug and I'm not sure either if we should go for >>> CRITICAL or WARNING messages in such cases. >>> >>> I mean, in the past, for spice server, there was discussion about when >>> to assert(). The result was that only when it would be a bug inside the >>> component (never on client's input/configuration for instance) >>> >>> Anyway, thanks for the discussion :) >> >> To tie this in with the logging discussion, you can read the latest >> comment from ebassi in this blog post about g_log_structured ;) >> >> https://blog.gtk.org/2017/05/04/logging-and-more/ >> >> Christophe >> > > Wrong thread? Looks like the structured logging would be more > appropriate in Chistophe D thread. > > About CRITICAL or WARNING personally I think if you are detecting > that server for some reason is sending garbage telling the used on > the UI and closing the connection/program is a good solution for > an user application. Only a good solution after we have cleaned up the existing issues there. With spicy today, I have 5 CRITICAL and 5 WARNING before the client window opens. The program won’t be that useful if it does not even start. > For the server is a completely different case as the termination > cause a DoS of the entire VM and also we don't have a user to > communicate to. > > Frediano > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel