Re: LogEngine / Re: Ideas for 3.7

I agree with michael, I just wanted to write the same. This way people 
get used to
funnel logs and then after this is easy to have a package plugging the 
right kind of logger.

Stef

On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 05:46 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:

> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>
>> For it to be a Basic package means that it will be distributed with
>> every official image (at least until Minimal is online). And AFAIK, we
>> consider it a good thing that images distributed contain only stuff 
>> that
>> their intended audience will actually need.
>> So I rephrase, Why should it be part of Basic or any other official
>> distribution?
>
> Another approach would be to agree on a stub method in Object that 
> could be implemented by logging packages.
> Some may have noticed that I had a log:flog: stub in Object in my 
> first versions of the network rewrite. Similar semantic to the 
> proposed package here.
>
> I always find it helpful to have logging available if needed without 
> going into code and finding out the interesting places. One example is 
> logging what's going on with loading in the background etc.
>
> A stub method would allow developers to put the logging calls into 
> place and people can load the logging facility of their choosing if 
> they actually want to log something.
> At least until we have #ifdef ;-)
>
> Summary:
> stub yes, package no
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>