From: "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2008-06-24T09:02:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Is it ellegant to use a global variable to store a Logger   object?


On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Suraj Kurapati wrote:

> ara.t.howard wrote:
>> this is a bad idea.  try to use rails' code with other code that uses
>> ruby's logging class and you'll see what i mean.
>
> Perhaps they modify ruby's logging class directly?

yup.

Rails.send('bad!')


>  I am proposing
> something different: a selective injection of logging functionality  
> into
> a library's top-level module.
>
>> it's better just to keep things simple imho
>
> I agree, but keep what simple?  Implementation or interface?
>
> Iņaki seems to want the interface to be simple, i.e. an automatic
> logging facility that is (1) private to his library and (2) does not
> require any explicit enabling (include Logging) or addressing (a LOG
> constant).
>
>> your meta-programming bit will fail, for example, if someone does
>>
>> module M
>>   extend AddLoggingToNested
>> end
>
> That is easily solved by aliasing included() to extended():
>
>  module AddLoggingToNested
>    # ... code from previous email ...
>
>    class << self
>      alias extended included
>    end
>  end
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>



yup i understand it all - because i've done it ;-)  in the end i just  
decided it was easier to use a singleton/module level methods - not  
least of which because

   grep -R Logger .

ends up being used a ton in debugging the logs of a crashed program.   
anyhow, i'm not disagreeing - just noting that i've done both  
extensive and tend towards the simple and explicit pattern with  
logging - YMMV.

cheers.


a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama