The specification says that "The write_recordlist() operation is provided ass a convienience operation to allow the output of a query of one log to be written to another log. In this case, only the "info" field (event content) of the RecordData struct is written to the log, the LogRecord id and logging time will be assigned by the log.". This is the only place in the spec that RecordData is used, I believe that LogRecord was intended. Also, it is unclear whether the attr_list field should be copied. While it says "only the info field" is written, attr_list is among the fields listed that will be "assigned by the log". For what it's worth, the Orbix Log Service implementation appears to copy the attr_list. Their Enterprise Messaging Guide for ORBIX 6.2 says "write_recordlist() is functionally identical to write_records(). It writes data directly to the log and raises the same exceptions. The major difference is that the record's data is stored in a LogRecord. This allows you to add a series of name/value pair attributes to assist in querying the log". The TAO log service implementation, which I currently maintain, also copies the value of attr_list.

The specification says that "The write_recordlist() operation is provided ass a convienience operation to allow the output of a query of one log to be written to another log. In this case, only the "info" field (event content) of the RecordData struct is written to the log, the LogRecord id and logging time will be assigned by the log.". This is the only place in the spec that RecordData is used, I believe that LogRecord was intended. Also, it is unclear whether the attr_list field should be copied. While it says "only the info field" is written, attr_list is among the fields listed that will be "assigned by the log". For what it's worth, the Orbix Log Service implementation appears to copy the attr_list. Their Enterprise Messaging Guide for ORBIX 6.2 says "write_recordlist() is functionally identical to write_records(). It writes data directly to the log and raises the same exceptions. The major difference is that the record's data is stored in a LogRecord. This allows you to add a series of name/value pair attributes to assist in querying the log". The TAO log service implementation, which I currently maintain, also copies the value of attr_list.

The specification states "If the capacity of a log exeeds that of one of its log capacity alarm thresholds, ..." This wording is confusing: The log capacity (as set by set_max_size()) is not compared with the capacity alarm thresholds; it does not state that the ThresholdAlarm is sent once when the threshold has been met, which may lead some to believe the alarm events will be sent continuously; and the word "Exceed" means that a alarm would never be sent for a threshold of 100%. I think that something like "If after a log record has been written, the current size of a log, as expressed as a percentage of max log size, is greater or equal to the next log capacity threshold, then a ThresholdAlarm event is generated ..." might be clearer.

I am in the process of updating TAO's Logging Service implementation. Section 1.2.5.1 stats "The Telecom Log Service proposes to define the following OMG Standard exception codes for use with the CosEvent and CosNotification push operations..." and goes on to mention a LOGFULL and LOGOFFDUTY minor code for the NO_RESOURCE [sic] SystemException, a LOGLOCKED minor code for the NO_PERMISSIONS SystemException, and a LOGDISABLED minor code for the TRANSIENT SystemException. TAO does not define these minor codes, so I checked the latest CORBA spec (3.0.3 / formal/04-03-12) and they are not in Appendix A either. What exactly does the spec mean "proposes to define" and what should an implementer do to handle these errors in the here and now.

Section 1.4.4 states that the "AttributeValueChange event is generated by a log factor when one of its log changes one of changes one of the following attributes..." The description of the set_* methods state "An AttributeValueChange is generated whenever the * is set". The former implies that the event will be sent if the value is changed, the latter imples the event will be sent even if the value is the same.

I am the current maintainer of the TAO logging service implementation. The specification is unclear what the interactions between set_max_size(), set_log_full_action(), and set_capacity_alarm_thresholds() have on the current processing of capacity alarms. For example, consider a log with DsLogAdmin::halt log full action and 0 (ie. infinate) max size, and a capacity alarm threshold list of [50, 75, 90, 100]. If the log has 80KB of records, and the max size is set to 100KB, are ThresholdAlarms supposed to be sent for crossing 50 and 75%, or should a threshold alarm only be sent once the log grows to 90%? Similar questions arise when the log full action is changed to/from DsLogAdmin::halt from/to DsLogAdmin::wrap, as the capacity alarm threshold processing changes from a percentage to a "gauge". Or when the capacity alarm threshold list is changed from one set of values to another.

I'm working on TAO's Log Service implementation, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to support QoS properties. The spec for get_log_qos() method states it "returns a list of the quality of service properties supported by the log." This is different from the other get_* methods, which return the current value of the settings. If this is the intent, it should be emphasized, and perhaps a new method introduced to fetch the current QoS settings. The three defined QoS settings QoSNone, QoSFlush, and QoSReliability are mutually exclusive. But unlike the Notification Service Spec's section on QoS settings, there is no guideance wrt. semantics of a property list with multiple properties or what should be returned in the denied list in the UnsupportedQoS exception.

The IDL for the ThresholdAlarm event defines three constants for the percieved_severity field: critical, minor, and cleared. The text says the "percieved_severity is minor if log is not full, and critical otherwise". If these are the only valid values, why is there a definition for cleared?