[Help-smalltalk] Re: Logging facility for GNU-smalltalk

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 07/09/2009 01:50 PM, Joachim Jaeckel wrote:
> Hi! Sorry for the delay in answering, I'm just back to the keyboard, but
> only for a few minutes...
>
> I now totaly agree, that a StreamOutputHandler is more than usefull.
> That gives the user the possibility to handle his special needs beside
> of that what is implemented in the current logger. - But even now, it
> could be implemented and give it to the implementation of the logger as
> the output-handler of a new "channel". But nevertheless, a
> StreamOutputHandler should be contained in the logger. Even as a
> superclass for File-output-handling and whatever.

That's the point -- the file-output handler is not a subclass, it's the 
same StreamOutputHandler just that it is created with a different class 
method that takes care of creating the FileStream.

> Logging (for me) should be a black box. I don't care, to what my
> logging is written and if I need a special action at the start/end of
> the logging. (e.g. opening/closing the log-file, Flushing the output
> or: writing the log as an html-file, you need some closing </body>
> </html> at the end of the log-file)

Agreed, that's the point of the output handler no?  My idea of the class 
hierarchy would be:

  OutputHandler
    StreamOutputHandler
      TextOutputHandler
      HTMLOutputHandler
    SyslogOutputHandler
    MultiplexOutputHandler

(Of course not everything needs to be there to include the logging in gst).

What do you think?

Paolo