Seems like a good idea to me, assuming the amount of code is kept to a bare minimum. Logging code is included (or is intended to be included) all over the place.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ryan J Baxter <[email protected]> wrote: > I would probably be calling the RPC handler in logAtLevel with the level > and the message. > > -Ryan > > Email: [email protected] > Phone: 978-899-3041 > developerWorks Profile > > > > From: ๏̯͡๏ Jasvir Nagra <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Date: 07/26/2011 04:35 PM > Subject: Re: Enhancing gadgets.log > > > > +1. > > Presumably you won't be hooking up gadgets.setLogLevel for rpc'ing. Since > gadgets.log does not return a value, hooking it up to something that has > async semantics doesn't seem problematic to me. > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Ryan J Baxter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Today the gadgets.log API essentially logs to the windows console. The > > problem is there is no way to "hook into" gadgets.log to log the > > information elsewhere. There are some application that have other > > existing logging mechanisms, or where the console is not available. > Would > > anyone by opposed to adding an rpc call to gadgets.log so applications > can > > register there own handlers and log the information using other means if > > they want? > > > > -Ryan > > > > Email: [email protected] > > Phone: 978-899-3041 > > developerWorks Profile > > > > > > > >
