Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 09:30, Priyesh kumar <priyeshkku...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Thanks for the reply, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *>Basically yes. As an improvement, I would like that the value of > the>`FT_COMPONENT` macro can be displayed optionally, e.g.>[afhints] foo > bar>[ttgxvar] sproink>...>The idea is that you first do a run with > `FT2_DEBUG=any:7:labels` to>see all those tags, then redo it with, say,> > FT2_DEBUG=afhints:7>to get only the 'afhints' debug messages if this is > what you need for>debugging.* > > Thanks, I will keep this in mind... > > > > *> >2. Most external libraries provide some log levels capabilities>> > themselves, so, should I think in direction of utilizing>> those. In > case yes, then how should that be utilized?* > *>Please elaborate and show examples.* > > > > > *>> In the 2nd case, FreeType's logger will completely depend on the>> > external library, and developers will also need to learn some new>> > information to use the logger. And In the worst-case scenario, if>> the > external library drops some functionality, we will need to make>> > amendments to the logger.* > *>I agree.* > > In the 2nd point I wanted to ask that should I completely reimplement the > logger using APIs of external library. > Since you agreed with the below point, I don't think the 2nd point makes > any sense now... > Will proceed with the 1st point... > > I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. There is absolutely no point in making part of FreeType depend on a specific external logger library at this point. Also we don't even know which library, or which API. This looks like a solution looking for a problem. Also we don't necessarily send logs to stderr, e.g. there are already several versions of ftdebug.c, i.e. the one under builds/windows/ uses OutputDebugStringA(), or the one under builds/amiga/ uses KVPrintf(), etc.. All Werner wants is structured outputs, which can easily be done in the current code base with minimal refactor of the FT_TRACE macro implementations. I'm sorry but all I see in your posts are vague promises and little concrete ideas. I recommend you start presenting how you plan modifying the current code base to achieve structured outputs (in very technical terms), then explain how one could hook FreeType to a *specific* logging library (e.g. with a runtime callback, or a configurable dependency). And for each step, explain the benefits / drawbacks of the approach you're suggesting. Thanks - David > Thanks, > Priyesh > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 9:03 PM Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > I wanted to ask that after selecting desirable external library how >> > should I proceed: >> >> [For David T.: The idea is to statically link the library into >> FreeType using a git submodule. In other words, it's 'external' only >> because it is developed by other people.] >> >> > 1. Should I stick to the existing debugging facility in which >> > filtering of log messages is based on debug level comparisons of >> > various FreeType's components and only use the external library >> > to write log messages to file instead of stderr? >> >> Basically yes. As an improvement, I would like that the value of the >> `FT_COMPONENT` macro can be displayed optionally, e.g. >> >> [afhints] foo bar >> [ttgxvar] sproink >> ... >> >> The idea is that you first do a run with `FT2_DEBUG=any:7:labels` to >> see all those tags, then redo it with, say, >> >> FT2_DEBUG=afhints:7 >> >> to get only the 'afhints' debug messages if this is what you need for >> debugging. >> >> > 2. Most external libraries provide some log levels capabilities >> > themselves, so, should I think in direction of utilizing >> > those. In case yes, then how should that be utilized? >> >> Please elaborate and show examples. >> >> > In the 2nd case, FreeType's logger will completely depend on the >> > external library, and developers will also need to learn some new >> > information to use the logger. And In the worst-case scenario, if >> > the external library drops some functionality, we will need to make >> > amendments to the logger. >> >> I agree. >> >> > According to me, the 1st option is better since the experience of >> > using the logger will be the same for the client and developers and >> > the only dependency of FreeType on external library will be of >> > writing log messages to a file. >> >> Yep. >> >> >> Werner >> >
