{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6/events","html_url":"https://github.com/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6","id":65078541,"number":6,"title":"interesting package","user":{"login":"shaunc","id":193170,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/193170?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc","html_url":"https://github.com/shaunc","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":3,"created_at":"2015-03-29T17:05:19Z","updated_at":"2015-04-04T04:53:33Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I am currently using bunyan in several applications. However, I'm getting ready to spin off part of them as a library, and wanted to release it as \"agnostic\" to users' logger preferences. Googling came up with your package -- it looks like its aiming toward what I want, but thought I'd ask...\r\n\r\n1) Is my purpose a good/intended use for the package? Or am I missing something?\r\n2) Whether you intend to support it? Doesn't seem like much activity, and bunyan is a pretty common logger...? Writing a wrapper looks pretty simple... but...\r\n3) Bunyan (and I'm sure other loggers) support \"child loggers\". It would seem that getLogger() returns an instance that multiplexes log calls to all registered instances... but you tack on the name to the start. So do you intend that the bunyan wrapper (or whatever) would create a child based on the name? \r\n\r\n4) Shouldn't there be a \"log level\" interface to the loggers? Or if you intend that they be registered \"pre-configured\"? If so, shouldn't the name be used to select a logger rather than multiplexing the signals?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/comments/89503968","html_url":"https://github.com/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6#issuecomment-89503968","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/pjanuario/logger-facade-nodejs/issues/6","id":89503968,"user":{"login":"shaunc","id":193170,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/193170?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc","html_url":"https://github.com/shaunc","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/shaunc/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-04-04T04:53:33Z","updated_at":"2015-04-04T04:53:33Z","body":"Hmm.. one problem I see is that its hard to write logger calls completely agnostically. For instance, bunyan writes json and I want to pass metadata, but your console logger facade will have trouble\r\nwith json.\r\n\r\nMay I suggest that all loggers support format such as:\r\n\r\n    info([metadata], message, [optional arguments])\r\n\r\nI think this would be a non-breaking change: metadata would be an object. So if the first argument is a string, we can conclude that metadata is absent, and current calls in form:\r\n\r\n    info(message, [arguments])\r\n\r\nWould be processed without change? Again ... I could give you a pull request, but only if you are interested ;). current loggers could ignore metadata if present or (better) put in form \"key=value, ...\" after formatted message.\r\n"}}