Forum: Ruby on Rails Logging on Rails 2.2 different than 2.0.2?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
RichardOnRails (Guest)
on 2008-11-16 05:37
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

On my beginng app under 2.0.2 (ovre WinXP/SP3),  all I wrote was
logger.info "xxxx"
and xxxx was displayed in the Command Window running Mongrel.

Now I've upgraded to 2.2.0 and log.info "xxxx" seems to do nothing.
Did something change, or do you think I did some 'reguire' or set
logger=something,or.other which I've forgotten about.

I Googled but found nothing worthwhile.

Any ideas?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
RichardOnRails (Guest)
on 2008-11-16 18:01
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

I finally realize the "logger.info" statements in my Rails 2.2.0 app
are going to developer.log.

Is there something simple I can add to my current app or Rails version
to get logger output to go to the Command Window running the Mongrel
web server, as the version I developed under 2.0.2 did?

I recently saw some blogs suggesting the 2.2.0 might not yet be the
"released version", though I doubt that because IMHO  the gem
installer wouldn't have included it among the available Rails
versions. Maybe the articles I saw were outdated.  True?

I found a great blog about switching between Rails versions and
freezing them so old app versions can be tested with their original
Rails environments:
http://blog.fiveruns.com/2008/8/6/quickly-switchin....

TIA,
Richard


On Nov 15, 10:37 pm, RichardOnRails
Frederick C. (Guest)
on 2008-11-16 18:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 16, 4:00 pm, RichardOnRails
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently saw some blogs suggesting the 2.2.0 might not yet be the
> "released version", though I doubt that because IMHO  the gem
> installer wouldn't have included it among the available Rails
> versions. Maybe the articles I saw were outdated.  True?
>

2.2.0 is 2.2RC1 (and 2.2.1 is the second release candidate) so those
blogs are accurate in that neither of those versions are the final
version of 2.2. You would only get those versions if you had added
gems.rubyonrails.org to your list of gem sources.

Fred
RichardOnRails (Guest)
on 2008-11-16 19:10
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks, Fred, for that clarification.

And you are right about  gems.rubyonrails.org.  "gem sources" reports
the I also have http://gems.rubyforge.org.

What do you recommend a senior app developer but a mid-level Rubyist
and junior Railist should have?

Thanks, again,
Richard

On Nov 16, 11:46 am, Frederick C. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
Bobnation (Guest)
on 2008-11-16 21:04
(Received via mailing list)
Depends, why not have both 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 in there so that you can
work on what is going to be coming with 2.2.x? The final version
should be coming pretty soon, and the more eyes looking at the current
release candidate the better.

On Nov 16, 11:10 am, RichardOnRails
RichardOnRails (Guest)
on 2008-11-20 05:09
(Received via mailing list)
> why not have both 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 in there

I'm doing that.  I going to try to switch between Rails Gem versions
for  a given app just by changing RAILS_GEM_VERSION = 'x.x.x'  in
environment.rb and see if that does the job.

Best wishes,
Richard
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.