Jakub Podlesak wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:06:41PM +0100, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> 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.
>
> i would prefer putting the loging code directly
> in the relevant source. The reason would not be granularity
> but "simplicity". But it is just my personal opinion.
>
You are too modest, your opinion counts!
OK, for logging lets go with the stuff in line.
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109