> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:mono-devel-list- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atsushi Eno > Sent: dinsdag 8 augustus 2006 19:47 > To: Gert Driesen > Cc: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] local file based EventLog implementation > > Hi Gert, > > Thanks for the comments. > > Gert Driesen wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:mono-devel-list- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >> Atsushi Eno > >> Sent: maandag 7 augustus 2006 3:58 > >> To: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > >> Subject: [Mono-dev] local file based EventLog implementation > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> During a consultation with a local customer I recently noticed that > >> we don't have EventLog implementation, while a basic framework has > >> existed for years, which was intended to have some different > implementations. > >> Hence I implemented pretty simple stupid one, which works only for > >> local machine. > >> > >> I modified some of existing framework as it does not seem to support > >> multiple implementation in reality. > >> > >> To use this code, set MONO_LOCAL_EVENTLOG_DIR = > >> /path/to/yourfavoritedir to point the location for aggregated event > >> logs. > >> > >> The usage sample I have is like: > >> > >> EventLog log = new EventLog ("enolog", ".", "logg"); > >> Console.WriteLine (log.Log); > >> foreach (EventLogEntry e in log.Entries) > >> Console.WriteLine (e.Message); > >> log.WriteEntry ("My test message."); > >> > >> It is really a hack. Any improvements or suggestions would be > >> appreciated. If no one is taking care of EventLog stuff, I'll > checkin > >> the code by myself. > > > > I'm not sure if it's really necessary to have a separate > > EventLogFactory abstraction, we could use a similar approach to the > > one used for the Registry API; meaning, define an interface and > > implementations of that interface and have EventLog pick the > > implementation for doing all the work (except for basic argument > > checks and stuff). Ofcourse, feel free to ignore my remarks as I'm > > glad we now have at least an implementation thanks to you > > ;-) > > I'm just curious, what's the benefit of your interface proposal over > factory methods? My guess is that we would end up to summarize common > code base into an abstract class, which will look like existing > EventLogImpl.
Yeah, we could ofcourse have an abstract base class, but I just didn't see the need for implementing both a factory class and an EvenLogImpl. But well, it's not that important. > > We might also use the Registry API for registering/deleting/querying > > event sources (on both linux and windows) to match the Win32 event > > log, which AFAIK uses > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog to > store that info. > > Yeah, I didn't spend time to learn about the Win API / Registry, but if > someone spare time to implement registry based sources it'd be cool. I'll see if I can take a stab at this tomorrow. > > That way we would only need to implement reading/writing event log > > entries itself in a platform specific way, and we could use your > > implementation for linux (and perhaps for the time being also for > windows). > > Or, on windows we could just use windows event log API (if exists). Yeah, partially (see my response to Kornél's post). Gert _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
