Hello Dominic,

can you tell me which issue are you referring? You said someone
already submitted a patch for FirePHP. I would like to review this one
- it seems useful to me.

On your problem, shouldn't the mapping happen in the Appender itself?
The "registration" should happen when the class has been loaded (maybe
in the autoload section, but can be done on every other position in
your script. It will be used when you configure the appender in the
configuration (you use the classname to do this).

What new loggerlevels do you actually need? I think trace is already
implemented.

Anyway, FirePHP contributions are welcome :-) I have not done to much
on log4php the past weeks but have now time again and would like to
include this one if you are willing to contribute it :-)

Cheers,
Christian


On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Dominic Lüchinger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Dev-Mailinglist
>
> I recently used log4php in a project. I often use FirePHP for debugging
> output. Unfortunately log4php does not support an FirePHP Appender. Someone
> in the log4php submitted recently a patch to support FirePHP. Inspired by
> this I wrote my one Appender with the support of
> Zend_Wildfire_Plugin_FirePhp. This was really straight forward. The problem
> now is the mapping of the Log-Levels of log4php and FirePHP. FirePHP has a
> LogLevel 'trace', to do a stacktrace and 'table' to ouput a table. I tried
> to create a new LoggerLevel by extending the LoggerLevel class. But there is
> a problem with the LoggerLevel class, that all the member variables are
> declared as private and not as protected. For that I had to copy paste and
> rewrite (scope access problem) methods like 'isGreaterOrEqual' and
> 'toString' to make my LoggerLevel work. Is there an other way to do the
> mapping?
>
> Also it would be nice if I could register this new Appender together with
> the LoggerLevel to do something like:
>
> $logger->trace("Trace starts here");
>
> I could not found a way to register new appenders and LoggerLevels.
>
> Thank you for your suggestions.
>
> Dominic
>

Reply via email to