For it to be a Basic package means that it will be distributed with every official image (at least until Minimal is online). And AFAIK, we consider it a good thing that images distributed contain only stuff that their intended audience will actually need.
So I rephrase, Why should it be part of Basic or any other official distribution?
My questions might sound "nasty" in some way, but they are the opposite - for the huge majority of packages, SM is exactly where they should aspire to be, and defined as prereqs for as many of its rightful clients as possible.
Daniel
goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Daniel Vainsencher danielv@netvision.net.il wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but let me ask the obvious question - Why should it be in the image?
The obvious answer is that it shouldn't be in the image. AFAIK Giovanni asks for it to be a "Basic" package. At least that is how I interpret it.
regards, Göran _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
For it to be a Basic package means that it will be distributed with every official image (at least until Minimal is online). And AFAIK, we consider it a good thing that images distributed contain only stuff that their intended audience will actually need.
So I rephrase, Why should it be part of Basic or any other official distribution?
Another approach would be to agree on a stub method in Object that could be implemented by logging packages. Some may have noticed that I had a log:flog: stub in Object in my first versions of the network rewrite. Similar semantic to the proposed package here.
I always find it helpful to have logging available if needed without going into code and finding out the interesting places. One example is logging what's going on with loading in the background etc.
A stub method would allow developers to put the logging calls into place and people can load the logging facility of their choosing if they actually want to log something. At least until we have #ifdef ;-)
Summary: stub yes, package no
Michael
I agree with michael, I just wanted to write the same. This way people get used to funnel logs and then after this is easy to have a package plugging the right kind of logger.
Stef
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 05:46 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
For it to be a Basic package means that it will be distributed with every official image (at least until Minimal is online). And AFAIK, we consider it a good thing that images distributed contain only stuff that their intended audience will actually need. So I rephrase, Why should it be part of Basic or any other official distribution?
Another approach would be to agree on a stub method in Object that could be implemented by logging packages. Some may have noticed that I had a log:flog: stub in Object in my first versions of the network rewrite. Similar semantic to the proposed package here.
I always find it helpful to have logging available if needed without going into code and finding out the interesting places. One example is logging what's going on with loading in the background etc.
A stub method would allow developers to put the logging calls into place and people can load the logging facility of their choosing if they actually want to log something. At least until we have #ifdef ;-)
Summary: stub yes, package no
Michael
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Stephane Ducasse wrote: [about logging stub package]
I agree with michael, I just wanted to write the same. This way people get used to funnel logs and then after this is easy to have a package plugging the right kind of logger. [...]
Daniel wrote:
A stub method would allow developers to put the logging calls into place and people can load the logging facility of their choosing if they actually want to log something.
Hi! If you like I can design the stub methods for the Object class, and then integrate my LogEngine. How do you want to design it? Do you like to get a "log" object responding to a protocol like info/debug/error ? The default behavior without a logging package would be to ignore the messages?
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Daniel Vainsencher -
Giovanni JJ Giorgi -
Michael Rueger -
Stephane Ducasse