Hi! Sorry for the delay in answering, I'm just back to the keyboard, but
only for a few minutes...
I now totaly agree, that a StreamOutputHandler is more than usefull.
That gives the user the possibility to handle his special needs beside
of that what is implemented in the current logger. - But even now, it
could be implemented and give it to the implementation of the logger as
the output-handler of a new "channel". But nevertheless, a
StreamOutputHandler should be contained in the logger. Even as a
superclass for File-output-handling and whatever.
But as I understand, it seems to me, that we use the logging a bit
different. (Please don't understand me wrong, the discussion is really
interesting for me!)
Logging (for me) should be a black box. I don't care, to what my logging
is written and if I need a special action at the start/end of the
logging. (e.g. opening/closing the log-file, Flushing the output or:
writing the log as an html-file, you need some closing </body></html> at
the end of the log-file) beside of a configuration-file, which could be
altered without rewriting program-code.
Time is running...
Would be nice if we end up with a logging-utility, that serves most of
our all needs...
Regards,
Joachim.
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalk@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
