On 2/1/05 10:27 AM, "John Peacock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Eisch wrote: > >> Cool! A logging plugin? Who would have thought of that? > > I said it was a good idea at the time, didn't I? I just don't use > syslog much anymore, so anything I do will based on a framework which > supports various logging backends, since I'll still be using multilog. > One of the plugins was a syslog plugin. As with other plugins, you can pick and choose what you use. >> >> Any chance that you'll do something like I did? > > I'll certainly take a look at what you did, but based on the original > thread (which I have now re-read), the core changes to support logging > plugins needs some careful thought to get past all of the objections. > Yes, the issue of chicken-egg comes up in that the plugin hook dispatch logs what it's 'hooking.' If we log calls to the logging plugin, we instantly hit death-by-recursion. There should be a better way around my little state-hack, I just haven't thought of it yet. Other than that, it was pretty straight forward. Thanks, peter
