> C. We have one logfile with UTF-8.
> Pros: Log messages of all our clients can fit in it. We can use any
> generic editor/viewer to open it.
> Nothing changes for Linux (and other OSes with UTF-8 encoding).
> Cons: All the strings written to log file should go through some
> conversation function.
>
> I think that the last solution is the solution. What is your opinion?
I am thinking about variant of C.
Problem with C is, converting from other encoding to UTF-8 is not
cheap because it requires huge conversion tables. This may be a
serious problem with busy server. Also it is possible some information
is lossed while in this conversion. This is because there's no
gualntee that there is one-to-one-mapping between UTF-8 and other
encodings. Other problem with UTF-8 is, you have to choose *one*
locale when using your editor. This may or may not affect handling of
string in your editor.
My idea is using mule-internal encoding for the log file instead of
UTF-8. There are several advantages:
1) Converion to mule-internal encoding is cheap because no conversion
table is required. Also no information loss happens in this
conversion.
2) Mule-internal encoding can be handled by emacs, one of the most
popular editors in the world.
3) No need to worry about locale. Mule-internal encoding has enough
information about language.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
