Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> :D I see others
>> have mentioned that in the archives, and I see the response. I have
>> the source... so I am free to do so if I wish aye? ;)
>>
>
> Happy to accept a patch :-)
>
> One thing that annoys me about logging code is that it "pollutes" the
> logic of the code. So i was thinking about how we may support such
> logging in a manner that does not "pollute". Two possible alternative
> solutions to direct logging could be:
>
> 1) Use DTrace providers. Unfortunately that won't work on Windows and
> some Linux distros. But it would be my favorite approach to
> investigate.
>
> 2) Provide logging specific UrlRule and UrlRules adapters that
> performing logging and defer to the under the underlying
> implementations. I am not sure if this will provide the degree of
> logging granularity required.
>
Jakub, in your opinion do you think 2 is viable or would we require
amore granular logging support, and/or should we just keep things
'simpler' in the technical sense and put the logging code directly in
the relevant source.
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109