My original plan was to tie the RPC call into gadgets.log so this would work for existing gadgets as well. I then realized I would be adding a dependency to RPC and gadgets.log is a core feature so that did not seem like a good approach. I guess creating a new feature would be the only way to do this, unfortunately it would require gadgets to explicitly require that feature in order to have the rpc function called.
-Ryan Email: [email protected] Phone: 978-899-3041 developerWorks Profile From: Michael Hermanto <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 07/27/2011 01:46 AM Subject: Re: Enhancing gadgets.log Good idea. In fact, I've heard (before) a use case where a gadget wants to log and report back to the container (gadgets.config.init'ed as necessary by container basis), so the parent can do container-specific logging back to the server. Echoing what John says, don't tie gadgets.rpc into gadgets.log (and add size). I'd suggest to extend gadgets.log into a new feature that does logging and rpcing. 2011/7/26 ๏̯͡๏ Jasvir Nagra <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
