You can set up the TraceAppender or OutputDebugStringAppender and then use DebugView (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896647.aspx). If you have appropriate rights to the target box, a remote DebugView can set up to listen on the remote box automatically. Otherwise, you'll need to run DebugView manually in listen mode on the target box before connecting from a separate machine.
Another interesting option is to use TelnetAppender, which allows you to telnet into the machine in question on a port you configure. Fun. From: Parrish, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Remote listening of server log stream ... I have a scenario where I have a server with several ADO.NET and Windows services running. Under normal operation, the applications write log messages of various severities to a rolling file(s), Windows event viewer, and e-mail via the SmtpAppender. I would like to set up a logger/appender that would allow remote listening in on the stream of logging messages. In this case, the server runs continuously and is constantly generating a stream of logging events to a RollingFileAppender. From time to time, I'd like to 'attach' to the logging output, remotely from a separate host and 'listen in' on the steam of messages being generated. I looked into the UdpAppender in combination with log4netview or logview4net. But it seems that the UdpAppender requires specification of a specific Host and TCP port. I didn't see a way that I could connect in to listen to the UDP stream remotely. I also considered writing a separate Windows Service that supported .NET remoting to which log messages were routed. I could then 'subscribe' via .NET remoting and remote message sinks listen in on the log stream. Seems like a lot of work for a simple task. I noticed the .NET RemotingAppender in the example appender source code, but am not sure if that will work. Has anyone needed this type of remote 'log listening' capability and have a suggestion for a solution or approach? Thanks, Ken Parrish Gomez, Inc.
