You will need to check out the trunk from subversion: https://svn.castleproject.org/svn/castle/trunk/ or http://svn.castleproject.org:8080/svn/castle/trunk/
Most people are using TortoiseSVN to create patches as per this page: http://www.castleproject.org/community/patch.html Remember to follow the Castle coding standards outlined here: http://www.castleproject.org/community/codingstandards.html On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi guys > I just got a copy of the trunk, 994. > In terms of how the patch is to be done, is this as simple as just > tracking what files change and zipping those up and submitting them to > someone?? > Cheers > Anthony > > On Dec 3, 4:35 pm, "Alex Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's a little confusing - I believe Ernst Naezer has logging > > services (i.e. the logging components) and I have the Logging facility, > > along with the batch registration and factory support facilities. > > > > I personally have been swamped with client work so I'm not going to be > able > > to catch up with open source commitments till christmas where I'll aim to > > get all the documentation up to date, try and provide patches for any > > unresolved bugs against those facilities etc. > > > > As a non-committer my Avenue is much the same as yours Anthony - so if > you > > have to develop these changes anyway I would suggest doing it against a > copy > > of trunk and submitting a patch reflecting the previously discussed > > approach, as long as the existing ILogger interface does not change and > it > > has good test coverage I don't think it should take long to be applied by > > one of the committers. > > > > Sorry I can't be more helpful at this time! > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Alex > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:59 PM, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the reply: > > > - For the record I have created the following issue over a month ago - > > > > >http://support.castleproject.org/projects/FACILITIES/issues/view/FACI. > .. > > > - Please let me know if this is what you where referring to > > > - I will endeavour to get in contact with Ernst Naezer > > > - Previously I have been in contact with Alex Henderson who I > > > though was responsible of the logging but I must have been wrong > > > - As for working on the tests and features that's the one thing that I > > > can control and if I get the go ahead will put into the logging > > > facility rather than the abstraction layer previously mentioned. > > > > > Cheers > > > Anthony > > > > > On Dec 3, 9:19 am, Gauthier Segay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello Anthony, > > > > > > your contribution is valuable, and I understand your frustration from > > > > the lack of clear answer. > > > > > > I'm not a commiter to the project so I can't warrant that your > > > > contribution will be integrated in the trunk within the 2 weeks > > > > timeframe but it seems rather doable if your implementation plan is > > > > well put. > > > > > > The constraint for the feature being integrated would be to have > > > > decent coverage and source code formatting / namingscheme complying > to > > > > the rules, having the bit documented would be great but I think a > > > > draft (few §) would do so the community can work together to clean it > > > > up. > > > > > > The best you have to do is: > > > > - create an issue in donjon > > > > - contact Ernst Naezer which is the responsible of the logging > > > > component to ensure that your contribution will be accepted and if it > > > > can be done within required timeframe > > > > - work on the tests and the features > > > > > > All design choose you exposed before seems to be good/effective from > > > > the usability standpoint. > > > > > > I hope this contribution will make it to the trunk :) > > > > > > On Dec 2, 10:47 pm, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Just bumping this as I was wondering if anyone is still interested > in > > > > > this. > > > > > > > The reason for asking is that I am coming very close to needing to > use > > > > > these features. I am happy to do most of the work I am just wanting > to > > > > > know if people want it feed back into the open source project and > how > > > > > long a process it is to feed it back in. > > > > > > > If there is no interest in moving this forward in the short term, I > > > > > will create my own set of classes that inherit from the classes > > > > > discussed, which add the additional functionality. Otherwise if > people > > > > > are interested I will add the code directly to the base classes (as > > > > > discussed) and feed to back. > > > > > > > Also this is something that I need to have done and dusted in the > next > > > > > 2 weeks. Hence if there is no chance of getting it into the main > > > > > project within that time frame or there is no interest I will > simple > > > > > go with my own set of classes solution. > > > > > > > I have been pushing very hard to try and avoid this as I would like > > > > > the work to go back into the main project, but if I don't get some > > > > > sort of feedback I don't have much choice. > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 7:50 am, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > And just so you know I created this a little while ago. > > > > > > Not sure if its what you mean by creating an issue but this is > what I > > > > > > have done so far. > > > > >http://support.castleproject.org/projects/FACILITIES/issues/view/FACI. > .. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 10:05 pm, Gauthier Segay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > > > > > > I suppose, the best now is to create an issue to attach patches > > > with > > > > > > > each basic features of your extensive summary, this way we > could > > > have > > > > > > > the feature and discuss further more advanced option that are > still > > > > > > > "hazy" > > > > > > > > > - add overrides to logging methods to accept extended > properties > > > > > > > - refactor with Log statement > > > > > > > - make the patch applied > > > > > > > > > then go further. > > > > > > > > > what do you think?, also what does Ernst Naezer (which is > > > ultimately > > > > > > > managing this component) think? > > > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 10:16 pm, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys > > > > > > > > I havn't heard anything on this in a while. Just checking in > to > > > see if > > > > > > > > this is going to move forward. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 1:34 pm, vdhant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I guess we could summarise what we have got so far as > > > follows: > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Event based context logging properties is something that > > > people are > > > > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > > > 1a) The best place to implement the support would be in > > > > > > > > > IExtendedLogger as originally discussed > > > > > > > > > - As for what come next seems to be a bit hazy... > > > > > > > > > - We could add another set of methods to IExtendedLogger > > > which > > > > > > > > > allows for event based context logging properties to be > passed > > > in as a > > > > > > > > > parameter, > > > > > > > > > - We could go a little more advanced and create a > stackable/ > > > > > > > > > scopeable event based context logging properties construct > > > which gets > > > > > > > > > passed in to relevant log method being used > > > > > > > > > - We could make no changes to IExtendedLogger and make > it so > > > the > > > > > > > > > only way that you could use event based context logging > > > properties is > > > > > > > > > to use the new LoggingEvent. But if this did occur the > first > > > think i > > > > > > > > > would be doing is creating a set of extension methods > myself > > > which > > > > > > > > > would given me the appearance of a new set of methods added > to > > > > > > > > > IExtendedLogger which allow me to add in the event logging > > > properties. > > > > > > > > > Personally I think others would to this as well, hence an > > > embedded > > > > > > > > > solution may be cleaner. > > > > > > > > > > > 2) A core "Log" method should be implemented in ILog > > > > > > > > > 2a) All current log methods (i.e. Debug, Error, etc) > would be > > > > > > > > > changed to call this log method > > > > > > > > > 2b) The log method would be implemented within base class > and > > > would > > > > > > > > > be overridden by implementations such as Log4Net > > > > > > > > > 2c) To state the obvious this Log method would be public > and > > > could > > > > > > > > > be called directly in situation where the log level is > > > determined at > > > > > > > > > run time > > > > > > > > > > > 3) LoggingEvent object could be introduced > > > > > > > > > - I think more details would need to be worked out as to > what > > > the > > > > > > > > > posible interface for ILoggingEvent would be > > > > > > > > > - Reason being that the LoggingEvent class in Log4Net is > > > rather > > > > > > > > > vobes (i am guess the others are too) and have large > > > composition > > > > > > > > > chains (note sure if that is really a term but i think you > will > > > get > > > > > > > > > the picute) > > > > > > > > > - In saying this I think that we could state the below, > let > > > me know > > > > > > > > > what you think > > > > > > > > > 3a) Before LoggingEvent can be created we need an > > > ILoggingEvent > > > > > > > > > interface (again sorry for what maybe stating the obvious) > > > > > > > > > 3b) This interface will force the implementation of > arguments > > > that > > > > > > > > > can be currently passed into the current log methods (i.e. > > > Debug, > > > > > > > > > Error, etc) and any additional items that come out of this > unit > > > of > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > 3c) A version of the new Log method in ILog will be > provided > > > which > > > > > > > > > allows for an ILoggingEvent to be passed in > > > > > > > > > > > If i have missed anything so far let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > Outstanding issues are the: > > > > > > > > > - Event based context logging properties > > > > > > > > > - An interface for LoggingEvent > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:44 am, "Alex Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it will play just fine with the underlying > > > implementations - if you > > > > > > > > > > take a look at log4net you'll find the various logging > > > methods implemented > > > > > > > > > > on the log4net.Core.LogImpl class (ILog interface) all > end > > > up being > > > > > > > > > > directed to one of two methods on the underlying ILogger > > > class: > > > > > > > > > > > > void Log(Type callerStackBoundaryDeclaringType, Level > > > level, object > > > > > > > > > > message, Exception exception); > > > > > > > > > > void Log(LoggingEvent logEvent); > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly was not proposing dropping the existing Debug > > > etc. methods - 99% > > > > > > > > > > of the time it's all you need for most logging > requirements - > > > just that > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > > -- Jonathon Rossi --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
