On R, 2007-08-03 at 18:51 +0100, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > I don't see a problem with having this functionality, but your
> > proposed interface seems a bit strange.
> >
> > Why do you really need the :silent, and :silence arguments?
>
> Trying to avoid some mysterious boolean parameter:
>
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000430.html
I suspected this, but including 'true' as a valid option in this
case seemed to go against the intent.
> > They seem to create redundancy: silence(:silence), and don't
> > really provide additional useful information.
>
> On or off would be weird for something that turns output off:
> are you turning the offness on, or the onness on? This seemed
> the least ambiguous thing I could come up with. But this is
> another reason I didn't send it as a straight patch, there's
> probably a better, clearer interface to this simple functionality
> than is dreamt of in my philosophy....
Fair enough, the real problem is that the method is called
'silence', I don't think it's common to add arguments to
methods that completely disable any effect the method adds
which is why this will seem unclear whatever way you do it.
The issue you had could technically have been fixed also
by adding a blank method that just calls it's block and
then you could have replaced a call to 'silence' with that method.
This method however is certainly not something that Rails should
provide.
> Yes, I'd not really considered that much, but finer grained control
> would be a good thing.
>
> > that disables it. All this would require is adding a "when false"
> > case into this silence implementation which enables some higher
> > logging level.
> >
> > Actually, to take this further, the silence method could take
> > a logging level as a parameter instead of a boolean. This way
> > you could arbitrarily change the logging level for code blocks
>
> Well, at the risk of getting pecked to death by the Duck Typists
> we could check the type of it.
>
> > and also have nesting support. Although in that case the name
> > of the method should probably be changed as well.
>
> I'm really trying to leave this so existing code can be just
> changed slightly when I want logging on, despite its author
> turning it off. Changing the name would be a bigger change in
> code I want to have utilize this. I'd really like to leave
> the name the same and have it backwards compatible if I can.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of adding a more generic
method and then implementing silence as a call to that method.
Something like this:
def use_log_level(new_logger_level)
old_logger_level, logger.level = logger.level, new_logger_level if
logger
yield
ensure
logger.level = old_logger_level if logger
end
def silence(&block)
use_log_level Logger:ERROR, &block
end
This would allow arbitrarily nesting the calls:
(Imagine that this is not actually one method,
but the calls to use_log_level and silence happen
in different methods which call eachother)
silence do
unimportant stuff
use_log_level(Logger::WARN) do
half-important stuff
end
unimportant stuff
use_log_level(Logger::DEBUG) do
currently developing this
end
unimportant stuff
end
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
