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. > Great. My worry (and it's really not a big worry because the only effect it will have on semantics is what gets logged) is rpc'ing the log level and the message in separate rpcs because then the order matters. > > -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 > > > > > > > >
