Feature request: Log file naming - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: Feature request: Log file naming (/showthread.php?tid=74861)
Feature request: Log file naming by skorpan on 05-30-2007 at 02:04 PM
It would be really nice if it was possible to set the log naming in the settings instead of the registry. Is this possible to include in a future update?
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by Volv on 05-30-2007 at 02:30 PM
MsgPlus registry edits are designed for proficient users to adjust things to their personal liking and in my personal opinion standard/less-skilled users wouldn't really need to rename their chat logs so it shouldn't be included in the preferences as it will only create confusion and something like this will result in a lot of users causing accidental issues with how their chat logs are recorded.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by skorpan on 05-30-2007 at 03:03 PM
Well, the standard format on the naming really could be better. Since they are sorted via the file name the order isn't chronological.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 05-30-2007 at 03:44 PM
Chat logs aren't supposed to be chronological, but are supposed to be saved per user. This is how it currently is also done.
If you mean the creation of the directories (for archiving), in the preferences you can already choose between archiving based upon date/time or archiving based upon email. If you wanna tweak this further you need to alter it in the rergistry. For most users the default settings (weither it is date/time or name) are more than sufficient.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by skorpan on 05-30-2007 at 03:49 PM
"december 1999" comes before "april 2007" in the listings (since they are sorted alphabetically). Not very user friendly.
It doesn't matter if the logs are saved ona a user or date basis, the problem itself remains.
(And yes, I have finally taken the time to edit the registry and change name on 700 log files)
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by Volv on 05-31-2007 at 02:32 AM
quote:Ok, I agree on this point - it is somewhat annoying that the month folders are arranged alphabetically (in the Chat Log Viewer) as opposed to chronologically.
Originally posted by skorpan
"december 1999" comes before "april 2007" in the listings (since they are sorted alphabetically). Not very user friendly.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by Voldemort on 05-31-2007 at 03:17 AM
can't you sort by creation date?
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by Volv on 05-31-2007 at 03:23 AM
quote:Not in the Chat Log Viewer unless I'm missing something =/
Originally posted by Voldemort
can't you sort by creation date?
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 05-31-2007 at 02:22 PM
quote:I agree also with this point. But that is why there are those resgistry settings I suppose.
Originally posted by Volv
quote:Ok, I agree on this point - it is somewhat annoying that the month folders are arranged alphabetically (in the Chat Log Viewer) as opposed to chronologically.
Originally posted by skorpan
"december 1999" comes before "april 2007" in the listings (since they are sorted alphabetically). Not very user friendly.
So unless Patchou changes the default very radically to the international numerical ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (which is very strange to a lot of people, especially to those who are not very computer-literate), the only option would be to alter it yourself to your own likings in the registry.
As you can't use any other sorting routine than alphabetically to list those folders.
quote:It is possible to program it like that, but that wouldn't be a true fix though. Folders can be copied, backed up, moved, etc. All this would make sorting on creation date useless to fix this, since it still wont be the right order.
Originally posted by Voldemort
can't you sort by creation date?
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by skorpan on 05-31-2007 at 03:46 PM
quote:Therefore you sort them via the default value. It is quite easy to read out the month name from the file or folder name. If they match the standard format (month year) it's a very simple task to sort them correctly in the log viewer.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:It is possible to program it like that, but that wouldn't be a true fix though. Folders can be copied, backed up, moved, etc. All this would make sorting on creation date useless to fix this, since it still wont be the right order.
Originally posted by Voldemort
can't you sort by creation date?
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 05-31-2007 at 03:59 PM
yeah... I think you're correct... Plus! could indeed retrieve the system's month and days names and other stuff like that to sort the folders.
But this wouldn't be easy though, as there are a lot of things to consider and people can name the files and folders whatever they want using the registry options. Moreover, the format of the names can change at any time since, again, people can change the registry options at any time too.
So you could have stuff like:
March 2007
2006 April
05/07/06 (and what is what in this format? Plus! couldn't have a clue, so how would this be sorted?)
2007-03
January (there is no year, so how would Plus! know where to place it?)
2006 (same problem as above, but this time with the month)
all in your logs directory....
So, although it might be possible, it still wouldn't be a true nice working way. And sorting it in a alphabetical way at least gives you a true consistant way of searching your folders.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by skorpan on 05-31-2007 at 04:14 PM
Plus! could be made to parse the names only when possible, for starters it would do if only the standard naming was included (since most people probably doesn't change that).
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by lysp on 06-03-2007 at 02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
yeah... I think you're correct... Plus! could indeed retrieve the system's month and days names and other stuff like that to sort the folders.
But this wouldn't be easy though, as there are a lot of things to consider and people can name the files and folders whatever they want using the registry options. Moreover, the format of the names can change at any time since, again, people can change the registry options at any time too.
So you could have stuff like:
March 2007
2006 April
05/07/06 (and what is what in this format? Plus! couldn't have a clue, so how would this be sorted?)
2007-03
January (there is no year, so how would Plus! know where to place it?)
2006 (same problem as above, but this time with the month)
all in your logs directory....
So, although it might be possible, it still wouldn't be a true nice working way. And sorting it in a alphabetical way at least gives you a true consistant way of searching your folders.
There is a simple and easy answer to this problem.
Most programmers should be aware of the iso date format (8601).
This stores the date in the format of yyyy-mm-dd.
With this there will never be confusion over dd-mm or mm-dd because its in order of most significant to least significant. Plus its sortable in alphabetical order too.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 07-07-2007 at 12:20 PM
Yes indeed.
But that doesn't provide a sorting fix for the user who isn't aware of that format and who still has many different styles of formats in his log directory or uses a different format than another user.
So,
quote:This isn't an answer or solution to how to implement an alternative sorting in the program itself.
Originally posted by lysp
There is a simple and easy answer to this problem.
Most programmers should be aware of the iso date format (8601).
Bottom line is that naming the folders in a good way is the job for the user, not for the program. So, Plus! can't do anything about that, except for providing the user with the ability to name the folder however he/she wants. And that is what Plus! does via the registry options.
Conclussion: The solution isn't to alter the sorting method, the solution is to alter the naming of the folders.
Plus! could sort folders in the Event Viewer based upon their naming like suggested by skorpan. But this will not be a good solution/feature at all because of what is said here.
The only proper solution is for yourself to (re)name your folders in such a way that they are sorted the way you want using the alphabetic sorting order (indeed like using the international date format).
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-07-2007 at 10:13 PM
The reason this thread is in existence is because Messenger Plus! is not working in a logical way.
The whole point of computer software is to make out lives/tasks easier, quicker and more logical, so we can easily understand it.
The date format of the file/folder naming was just unwittingly coded in the wrong format in the first place... creating this mess. These slip-ups happen all the time, and are a fact of life, but it's a simple job of making a few changes to correct it and getting nearer to perfection... The Goal of any programmer surely?
Log files, by definition, are all about archiving data with respect to when it happened in time. All this is recorded chronologically and sequentially.
The reason for recording logs is to make the date available for reexamining at a later date. So it's wise to store this date in a logical and useful format.
With instant messaging, we're in the business of talking to people, so splitting up the log files one for each person (email address in this case) is an extremely logical thing to do. So having a folder per email address is good.
Splitting it up into Month folders with a log file per email address has got it's applications, but is more rarely needed i reckon.
After that, you'd want to then store log files within that folder with chronological file names, so that they naturally sort that way by default.
I gather there might be performance issues with having an individual log file per conversation, so that's why they are currently stored in monthly files.
This is where MP falls over and is illogical. Having all the Decembers grouped together is of no use at all.... The log files must flow chronologically by default.
If i need to find something in the logs, i almost certainly know who the conversation was with... now i just need to remember when abouts the conversation took place and look in the corresponding month file... After looking in a couple, around the guessed time, you should find what you were looking for. Sorted!
But at the moment, we open up the persons folder and all the month files are clumped together, nothing is chronologically ordered... There's probably several years worth of date that has been backed up, copied over a few times, so that file creation/modification dates are not what they should be and it confuses and annoys the yell out of you and you throw the monitor out of the window 
... Or start writing comments on the forums!
The ISO date format is just 100% logical and a wonderful thing.
Here's the ISO's website describing the Standard: The ISO solution to a long-standing source of confusion
To suggest that some people will find this format strange is true but that is an extremely weak statement... Someone who might be 'not very computer-literate' will look at this might think "ooh, it's a bit different... Ah, here what I'm looking for" That confusion will last fractions of a second before the natural order of data helps them find what they are looking for. It's simple & logical, so it's easily and quickly learnt. So this is a non-issue.
So sensible defaults I'd guess would be this:
code:A path/filename format like this should be 100% logical and useful for almost all the users of Messenger Plus! Those that have specific needs that require it in other formats can then go off into the registry and tweak away.
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-12 (December).ple
Messenger Plus! should work logically out-of-the-box. So let's fix it so that from this point onwards, it works correctly.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 12-08-2007 at 03:18 AM
The default format of the naming convention is more user friendly /readable than the industry-like ISO format. It uses the user's local system format to name the folders.
And as said before also, you as the user does have the ability to name the folders however you want.
As for sorting, this has consequences:
Sorting must be done in such way that it is logical nomatter how the logs are named. This can only be achieved if you sort alphabetically, which is very logical (unless you don't know the alphabet). So nothing needs to be changed in the logviewer at all or in the way it sorts the files and folders. Which is explained several times in this discussion.
quote:This hasn't got anything todo with performance issues. They are stored by default the way they are because "January 2007" is more readable and user friendly than "200701, "2007-01", "2007/01", etc. It is the system's default. That is why it was done that way by default.
I gather there might be performance issues with having an individual log file per conversation, so that's why they are currently stored in monthly files.
This is where MP falls over and is illogical. Having all the Decembers grouped together is of no use at all.... The log files must flow chronologically by default.
You couldn't agree with it, but that is why there is the possebility to change it (although this needs to be done in the not-user-friendly registry).
quote:Absolutely no arguments there. But still, except for the point that it currently doesn't work with some form of ISO8601, you can change to it.
Messenger Plus! should work logically out-of-the-box. So let's fix it so that from this point onwards, it works correctly.
Also the fact that not everybody in the world uses the same calender type plays a major roll here. The ISO8601 is simply not a natural way of representing a date, yes it is unambiguous (mostly, as that can also be debated actually), but is is unnatural for a very large part of the world (except for Japan or something).
This again makes that using the local system date format is far more user friendly, out-of-the-box.
And seeing that only one or two people out of the million users have a real problem with all this, I don't think that the default method it currently uses is so inlogical and inpractible.
You can agree with it or not; natural language like or international standard like, and you would be correct, just as the others would be correct too...
The rest of the people simply change the format once, to the way they want and be done with it.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-08-2007 at 04:21 AM
OK, so can we assume that most people, when they are looking for a chat log will know exactly who the chat was with??? ...and roughly when the chat was... give or take a month or two. This is true for all the times i've been looking thru my chat logs.
I think this is the default??? 'Save By Date' i.e. the out-of-box experience
code:This is not very useful and not logical.
...\My Chat Logs\December 2006\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com.ple
...\My Chat Logs\December 2007\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com.ple
...\My Chat Logs\March 2006\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com.ple
...\My Chat Logs\March 2007\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com.ple
Having to look in several folders, just to see if there is a log for the person you were chatting to...
Trying to find the right month in the year you were talking to them... and then trying to find the next month, or the previous month... skipping backwards and forwards thru the list as it's out of chronological order...
Now we have the other option, 'Save By Email'
code:More user friendly, as all the logs for one person are in a single folder.
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\April 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\April 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\August 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\August 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\December 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\December 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\February 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\February 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\January 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\January 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\July 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\July 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\June 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\June 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\March 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\March 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\May 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\May 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\November 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\November 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\October 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\October 2007.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\September 2006.ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\September 2007.ple
But they in the totally wrong and illogical order. Not easy on the eyes and not easy for searching thru... As with the first example. OK, singularly, the filename is very descriptive, but if you have more than one file in the folder, it then becomes confusing.
OK, the ISO Date format is not being used in it's full.
The idea of talking about the ISO standard is to use the fundamental features of it that will make all this easy.
The five 'Advantages' listed in the document on the standard are all relevant here:
quote:So we could have something that is very easy on the eye, something that sorts naturally (alphanumerically=default on all systems), very easy to scan down to find what we are looking for, as it all lines up... Irrespective of where in the world you live.
* Easily readable and writable by systems
* Easily comparable and sortable
* Language independent
* Larger units are written in front of smaller units
* For most representations the notation is short and of constant length
So we could have it looking like this. All logs for one person are in a single folder, that works well as seen above. Then the monthly filenames are in the form: Year, then month number followed by the Month Name (which will help us with trying to remember which month is which number
). Naturally sorts correctly and can not cause any confusion with any user, of any levelcode:User-friendly
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-01 (January).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-02 (February).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-03 (March).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-04 (April).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-05 (May).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-06 (June).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-07 (July).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-08 (August).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-09 (September).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-10 (October).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-11 (November).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2006-12 (December).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-01 (January).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-02 (February).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-03 (March).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-04 (April).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-05 (May).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-06 (June).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-07 (July).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-08 (August).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-09 (September).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-10 (October).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-11 (November).ple
...\My Chat Logs\fred.bloggs@hotmail.com\2007-12 (December).ple
The fact that we have the ability to change the registry to make Messenger Plus! do the above with the folder/file naming must mean that it is a rather easy job for Patchou to make this change such that Messenger Plus! is user-friendly out-of-the-box for everyone.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 12-08-2007 at 05:10 AM
We all know how the ISO8601 works. The fact remains that there is a reason why the local system format is used over the ISO8601 standard by default. It may have been a wrong decision in the past in your eyes, but that is the way it is.
If you want to change it, change it in the registry.
As for your last part: No, if some setting is located in the registry it is by no means easy to integrate this into the GUI of the program. There are very big differences between checking upon an registry setting internally, and providing a user-friendly GUI options panel with all the proper translations and explainations, options, etc.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by markee on 12-08-2007 at 05:23 AM
This can be easily compensated for if we just get a little "Sort by Date Create"/"Sort by Name" feature. And I personally would prefer it, but realistically it is not a necessity.
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-08-2007 at 05:57 AM
quote:The ISO standard was created to fix these exact problems. Why not take some of its escence, and make your software work better the world over.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
We all know how the ISO8601 works. The fact remains that there is a reason why the local system format is used over the ISO8601 standard by default. It may have been a wrong decision in the past in your eyes, but that is the way it is.
quote:The registry should be the place you head to when you have some non-standard/rare needs to be catered for.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If you want to change it, change it in the registry.
What we have been asking about in this and other threads is that is should work better by default. (And to perhaps make any changes easier to make as a bonus)
quote:Simple, set the Save By Email option as default, and change the default filename registry entries to give us a format like above. No GUI changes needed.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
As for your last part: No, if some setting is located in the registry it is by no means easy to integrate this into the GUI of the program. There are very big differences between checking upon an registry setting internally, and providing a user-friendly GUI options panel with all the proper translations and explainations, options, etc.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 12-08-2007 at 06:15 AM
quote:All the windows file system datetime stamps are very unreliable since all they all can and will easly be altered, even unwillingly.
Originally posted by markee
This can be easily compensated for if we just get a little "Sort by Date Create"/"Sort by Name" feature. And I personally would prefer it, but realistically it is not a necessity.
quote:And since only you and a small hand full of others are the only ones who seem to be having problems with the way it is, it is safe to assume that this is such a rare need.
Originally posted by topbanana
The registry should be the place you head to when you have some non-standard/rare needs to be catered for.
quote:That is extremely unfriendly to the user. Not only are you then forcing a radical change upon the user without its consent, it would also create a big mess in the existing log directories and people will start to complain for sure!
Originally posted by topbanana
Simple, set the Save By Email option as default, and change the default filename registry entries to give us a format like above. No GUI changes needed.
If such a change is being introduced it must be accompanied with a well thought GUI change and even a possible way to convert the existing directories to the new system if the user wishes so.
---
Don't get me wrong, but reading your posts I get the feeling you're a very knowledgeable PC/IT user. The average people using Messenger and Plus! are not. While we, savy PC users, have no problems with dealing such situations, registry changes, advanced options and settings, the average user is certainly not. You need to look at all this from their POV. The change you propose is good in my eyes too, but it is not possible and not easy to do just-like-that. Moreover, there does not seem to be a big request for this either.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by markee on 12-08-2007 at 06:53 AM
quote:Yeah, I realise that, that's why I said date created rather than modified. I know that it is easy to stuff up (like just moving to another computer for instance) but it should help mos of the time, and having a button (or radio control) or something to quickly change between them is better than nothing IMHO.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:All the windows file system datetime stamps are very unreliable since all they all can and will easly be altered, even unwillingly.
Originally posted by markee
This can be easily compensated for if we just get a little "Sort by Date Create"/"Sort by Name" feature. And I personally would prefer it, but realistically it is not a necessity.
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-08-2007 at 07:00 AM
quote:Us, the small handful, are the ones that decided to ask for an improvement to a failing in the software. It's pretty sensible to assume that some users of Messenger Plus don't use the logs at all... Then a large % of those that do will be people that just get on with it and accept the way it works as set in stone... They'll get a little miffed when trying to search thru the logs one day, but they'll deal with it. Then you'll have a group of people that find out they can change the registry entries and get on with it. Then you've got people that want it changed, but just can't be arsed to do/say anything... this is a big group normally... Then you are left with us, who find the forums and start asking for changes or new features. We're a tiny % of the Messenger Plus user-base. And this 'feature' is not a show-stopper like the disappearing 'Rename Contact Feature' of MPLive, so the number of us asking for a change is small. But this thread and a few others that talk about this 'feature' have been frequented by a number of people. It's not just one person with a wacky idea. And our idea does have the benefit of actually being half sensible (if not totally)
Originally posted by CookieRevised
And since only you and a small hand full of others are the only ones who seem to be having problems with the way it is, it is safe to assume that this is such a rare need.
quote:I see your point with the big change and likelihood of complaints. So perhaps a compromise is in order:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:That is extremely unfriendly to the user. Not only are you then forcing a radical change upon the user without its consent, it would also create a big mess in the existing log directories and people will start to complain for sure!
Originally posted by topbanana
Simple, set the Save By Email option as default, and change the default filename registry entries to give us a format like above. No GUI changes needed.
If such a change is being introduced it must be accompanied with a well thought GUI change and even a possible way to convert the existing directories to the new system if the user wishes so.
The default behavior is for MP to 'Save By Date' and the change to 'Save By Email' would be a huge step change that would gather some complaints, cos it's very different. So we could leave the default as-is. But, we could change the default filename for the 'Save By Email' from "December 2007" to the suggested "2007-12 (December)"... This is not a radical step-change. This change can be listed as an 'Improvement' in the changelog when released and people looking in their chosen 'Save By Email' log folders would find the new logs now being written with better filenames, which they will mostly work out straightaway is indeed an improvement.
Users love improvements to software! (noticed anyone hanging around your download servers today for any reason???
) Improvements often mean things get changed... And yes, small changes are probably better swallowed by us users.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 12-08-2007 at 07:05 AM
quote:Actually my point was that changing "December 2007" to "2007-12 (December)" IS radical and should not happen just like that. Not without a decent GUI walking the user to the change and giving him/her the option to attempt (note: attempt, this is very difficult to make this fail proof) to do this automatically...
Originally posted by topbanana
see your point with the big change and likelihood of complaints. So perhaps a compromise is in order:
The default behavior is for MP to 'Save By Date' and the change to 'Save By Email' would be a huge step change that would gather some complaints, cos it's very different. So we could leave the default as-is. But, we could change the default filename for the 'Save By Email' from "December 2007" to the suggested "2007-12 (December)"...
Changing the user's option from "save by date "to "save by email" didn't even came to mind. That too is severe and shouldn't happen.
In short: just changing the default regisrty option is a no-no, IMHO.
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-08-2007 at 07:14 AM
quote:The radical change would be that the log files would now be named in such a way that they now all sit there in the correct order, making it easier to find things. Which would be a wonderful improvement.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Actually my point was that changing "December 2007" to "2007-12 (December)" is radical and should not happen just like that.
Changes that make life more difficult are not liked. Changes that make life easier are liked.
RE: Feature request: Log file naming by CookieRevised on 12-08-2007 at 07:50 AM
No, the radical change would be that the average user, suddenly, without any warning, see his directory full of subdirectories with different formats (old and new), aka a big mess.
You said it would be simple to change it; just change the default registry option. Hence I replied that this can not be done just-like-that and should be done with a decent designed GUI accompanying the new method and maybe even with a wizard-like auto-converter to 'attempt' to change the old directories to the new ones.
If not, many people will complain and maybe even report it as a bug.
Again, it is NOT as easy as simply changing the default registry setting, like you might think.
Such a change is severe and that is not how a user-friendly program should behave, at all. Especially not a program which is mostly used by people who are not computer-savy users like us.
In short: if you want it, change it (you most likely already did). For this to be added as a standard in Plus!, additional changes need to be done (eg: redesign logging option panel) and that means it wont be done for the next version, nor will it be done without any thought I can imagine.
-------------
EDIT: You don't seem to get my point though....
I'm not saying that using the ISO standard is bad, I'm saying that you are wrong into thinking that the current system is not user friendly and wrong into thinking it is a very easy to implement and only requires a default reg setting to be changed.
RE: RE: Feature request: Log file naming by topbanana on 12-08-2007 at 08:11 AM
quote:But it's a big mess now. The user would see the new log files lining up at the top in an orderly fashion... With a big mess underneath them...
Originally posted by CookieRevised
No, the radical change would be that the user would suddenly, without any warning, see his directory full of subdirectories with different formats (old and new), aka a big mess.
quote:If no GUI/Wizard is going to be included, the registry change would only be needed. But yes, a nice GUI/Wizard would be lovely! Nice of you to offer! I look forward to seeing it
Originally posted by CookieRevised
You said it would be simple to change it, just change the default registry option. Hence I replied that this can not be done just-like-that and should be done with a decent designed GUI accompanying it and even with a wizard-like autoconverter to 'attempt' change the old directories to the new one.
quote:I bet a lot less than have entered into this plea for change.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If not, many people will complain and maybe even report it as a bug.
quote:The entries have to be written to the registry during installation... You can then set the values to whatever you want.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Again, it is NOT as easy as simply changing the default registry setting like you might think. That is not how a user-friendly program should behave, at all. Especially not a program which is mostly used by people who are not computer-savy users.
The only change people will see here is a positive one, if they are savy or not they would appreciate this improvement.
People are used to seeing stuff in chronological order, 99.99% of people email inboxes are sorted in perfect chronological order... This is THE norm. Everyone is totally accustomed to this...
Sorting stuff alphabetically by the first letter of the name of the month is just plain weird.