That's a drag... I hadn't noticed any instances where the main log and child were interleaved (do we bother to differentiate which parallel child logs are being used, in such a case?? OOPHM clearly has multiple loggers going, but it had seemed that within each we had fairly clean separation). And the idea had been to avoid needing to add "task completed" messages, or knowing which tasks were interesting)... or having to do time-differential math, although that is at least possible. Hm. We could adopt an explicit logger.close() method, but that's almost as much nuisance as the task completed bits.
Ah, well. :-/ On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:27 AM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, <fabb...@google.com> wrote: > >> Also, each TreeLogger branch is automatically timed, from start to when >> we can figure the branch is dead (i.e. to first log emission NOT on the >> branch, a slightly too exapansive definition.) >> > > That isn't going to work in general -- frequently a branch is created, more > stuff is logged to the main log, and then later things are logged to the > branch. > > OOPHM already keeps timestamps on every log message, so you get the timing > to the second, but you might need to add some "task completed" log messages. > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
