Is the TIMING log level a good idea, though, and sorted correctly? I waffled a bit on whether to make it be a new log level or an orthogonal flag....
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, <[email protected]> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
