Wait, I misunderstood something.
What's the difference between logger = X and initLogger(X)?
-
Marius wrote:
Why not? LiftRules is about configuring a lift app at startup.
On 25 feb., 16:56, Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
> Why should an initLogger method be in Lif
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Ross Mellgren wrote:
> My concern about putting this in LiftRules is that not all applications that
> could benefit from the new logging support will use webkit, since the logging
> is in common.
>
> Maybe a bridge method in LiftRules to put it in a convenient pl
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Ross Mellgren wrote:
> My concern about putting this in LiftRules is that not all applications
> that could benefit from the new logging support will use webkit, since the
> logging is in common.
>
> Maybe a bridge method in LiftRules to put it in a convenient pl
My concern about putting this in LiftRules is that not all applications that
could benefit from the new logging support will use webkit, since the logging
is in common.
Maybe a bridge method in LiftRules to put it in a convenient place, but I think
the actual work should be exposed nearby the l
Why not? LiftRules is about configuring a lift app at startup.
On 25 feb., 16:56, Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
> Why should an initLogger method be in LiftRules?
>
> -
>
> Marius wrote:
>
> Then perhaps:
>
> LiftRules.initLogger(Log4J)
>
> On Feb 25, 12:16 pm, Jepp
Why should an initLogger method be in LiftRules?
-
Marius wrote:
Then perhaps:
LiftRules.initLogger(Log4J)
On Feb 25, 12:16 pm, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Marius wrote:
> > I'd opt in for something like:
>
> > LiftRules
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Marius wrote:
> Then perhaps:
>
> LiftRules.initLogger(Log4J)
I'll buy that :-)
/Jeppe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe fro
Then perhaps:
LiftRules.initLogger(Log4J)
On Feb 25, 12:16 pm, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Marius wrote:
> > I'd opt in for something like:
>
> > LiftRules.logger = Log4J
>
> Agree this fits the current idioms, but how should this be triggered?
> The new log
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Timothy Perrett
wrote:
> +1
>
> This fits with the idioms we already have. Although, so Lift doesn't carry a
> default dependency it would probably need to be:
>
> // default
> LiftRules.logger = NoLogger
>
I'm not sure this is worth it. It's added complexity th
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Marius wrote:
> I'd opt in for something like:
>
> LiftRules.logger = Log4J
Agree this fits the current idioms, but how should this be triggered?
The new logging code is in lift-common so cannot call stuff in
LiftRules.
Note we're not talking about Loggers (obje
+1
This fits with the idioms we already have. Although, so Lift doesn't carry a
default dependency it would probably need to be:
// default
LiftRules.logger = NoLogger
Or something...
Cheers, Tim
On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:32, Marius wrote:
> I'd opt in for something like:
>
> LiftRules.logger
I'd opt in for something like:
LiftRules.logger = Log4J
or
LiftRule.logger = MyOwnLogger
Br's,
Marius
On Feb 25, 11:23 am, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm about to start sprinkling the new logging code over some of Lift's
> internals. But first, the logging backend needs configuring
12 matches
Mail list logo
