and another guy will come and repeat again the same.... sounds to loop here... My point is that why do we extend something that apparently is just done for not been extended else it will be complex and somebody else will restart.
Because if toothpick would have been called simpleLogger then may be people would have looked at it the first time. Sorry to be boring this morning but you are wrap in a moebius trick. Tell us when SimpleLogger will not be simple so that we start another simpleloggerBis :) Stef > This was my point when I wrote SimpleLogger, not time to understand > nor port other framework and needed simething really basic. > > I documented it on Pharo book chapter, we should extend now such > chapter with the doc of new features. > > Cheers. > > > 2010/10/21 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>> why don;t you look look at toothpick? >>> >> >> Because I don't have time to learn a new logging framework, nor to make it >> work on Pharo. I don't plan to be part of a logging framework. I just needed >> something really EASY for my projects. So, I remembered Germán doing that, I >> know it was working in Pharo, and it took me 5 minutes to understand. 2 >> hours more to add my features, and that's all :) I just make it public for >> other users. >> >> Chees >> >> Mariano >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
