Hi Berin,
after some tasks with higher priority I am back at the logger. I
switched also the list.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> I recently made an alteration to Fortress (about a week ago) that
> altered the way it decided what the root category was going to be.
> Previously, it assigned the root category to the LoggerManager--but
> that required all logger categories to decend from "fortress.*".
> Now the kernel uses its "fortress" logger tree as expected, and the
> components live in there own space.
I suppose I have to use the CVS newest version then ...
> Also, the way logger names are assigned (I looked deeper into the
> code), is based on the component id, not the logger attribute.
Hmm. At least in my current version (from end of January) tries to
install a logger category based on the attribute "name".
So what should be done really? I would like to get maximum
compatibility between the containers, but I don't know, what the
others are doing.
Having follwing xconf Fortress does currently have only the
"Fortress" root logger:
<app logger="app">
<comp1 logger="comp1">
<comp11 logger="comp1.comp11" />
<comp12 logger="comp12" />
</comp1>
</app>
IIRC the logger entry for "app" is ignored at all, even if the
attribute would be renamed to "name". Renaming "logger" to "name"
I suppose I would get following loggers:
Fortress.comp1
Fortress.comp1.comp11
Fortress.comp12
What is the behaviour of the other containers (ECM, Phoenix, Merlin)?
What I hoped to get was following structure, reflecting the nesting
level of the components in the logger hierarchy automatically:
app.comp1
app.comp1.comp1.comp11
app.comp1.comp12
Insights?
Regards,
J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
