On 07/09/2009 01:50 PM, Joachim Jaeckel wrote:
Hi! Sorry for the delay in answering, I'm just back to the keyboard, but
only for a few minutes...
I now totaly agree, that a StreamOutputHandler is more than usefull.
That gives the user the possibility to handle his special needs beside
of that what is implemented in the current logger. - But even now, it
could be implemented and give it to the implementation of the logger as
the output-handler of a new "channel". But nevertheless, a
StreamOutputHandler should be contained in the logger. Even as a
superclass for File-output-handling and whatever.
That's the point -- the file-output handler is not a subclass, it's the
same StreamOutputHandler just that it is created with a different class
method that takes care of creating the FileStream.
> Logging (for me) should be a black box. I don't care, to what my
> logging is written and if I need a special action at the start/end of
> the logging. (e.g. opening/closing the log-file, Flushing the output
> or: writing the log as an html-file, you need some closing </body>
> </html> at the end of the log-file)
Agreed, that's the point of the output handler no? My idea of the class
hierarchy would be:
OutputHandler
StreamOutputHandler
TextOutputHandler
HTMLOutputHandler
SyslogOutputHandler
MultiplexOutputHandler
(Of course not everything needs to be there to include the logging in gst).
What do you think?
Paolo
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
