Logging 0.1.0


#1

SYNOPSIS

Logging is a flexible logging library for use in Ruby programs based on
the
design of Java’s log4j library. It features a hierarchical logging
system,
custom level names, multiple output destinations per log event, custom
formatting, and more.

Logging is intended to supersede the orphaned Log4r project.

INSTALL

To install:

$ gem install logging

A tarball is also available on the RubyForge project page:

http://rubyforge.org/projects/logging/

EXAMPLE

require 'rubygems'
require 'logging'
include Logging

log = Logger.new 'test'
log.appenders = Appender.stdout
log.level = 'info'

log.debug 'debug message'
log.info 'informational message'
log.warn 'Danger! Danger! Will Robinson'
log.error {
   # ... some very time consuming code goes here
   'this log message took a long time to construct'
}
log.fatal 'Die Die Die'

The following lines are printed to STDOUT

 INFO  test : informational message
 WARN  test : Danger! Danger! Will Robinson
ERROR  test : this log message took a long time to construct
FATAL  test : Die Die Die

NOTES

Although Logging is intended to supersede Log4r, it is not a one-to-one
replacement for the Log4r library. Most notably is the difference in
name spaces
– Logging vs. Log4r. Other differences include renaming
Log4r::Outputter to
Logging::Appender and renaming Log4r::Formatter to Logging::Layout.
These
changes were meant to bring the Logging class names more in line with
the Log4j
class names.

This is an alpha release, and as such it is not yet feature complete.
Neither
the YAML configuration nor the XML configuration have been incorporated
into the
Logging library. Not all the logging appenders have been incorporated
into the
Logging library either. If you would like to port any code from Log4r
please
contact me (contact info can be found in the gem specification).


#2

Yes ! A decent ruby logger. I was waiting for this since a long time.

Are you going to fix the syslog adapter ? In Log4r, when you used
syslog, it
would change the error level and reporting methods. It’s pretty
annoying.


#3

On 1/15/07, Jonas P. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Yes ! A decent ruby logger. I was waiting for this since a long time.

Hmmm … I would download the code first and poke around … kick the
wheels. But thanks for the exuberance :slight_smile:

Are you going to fix the syslog adapter ? In Log4r, when you used syslog, it
would change the error level and reporting methods. It’s pretty annoying.

Sure. The field is wide open at the moment. I’m looking for
suggestions / requests from developers.

My thought on syslog is to require a mapping from the user that maps
the defined logging levels to the syslog logging levels. If the user
has not defined any logging levels, then the syslog levels become the
default (i.e. the current Log4r behavior).

Blessings,
TwP


#4

On 1/16/07, Jonas P. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

No problem, I’ve tried to contact the Log4r developper regarding some bugs

suggestions / requests from developers.
logging.tgz file, as package names are locked to a project for security
reasons.

They are doing some security audits / updates on RubyForge right now.
Gems are not being migrated over for distribution until they are done
with this. You can manually download the gem and install it if you
would like to tinker.

http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=2870

Blessings,
TwP


#5

2007/1/15, Tim P. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:

On 1/15/07, Jonas P. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Yes ! A decent ruby logger. I was waiting for this since a long time.

Hmmm … I would download the code first and poke around … kick the
wheels. But thanks for the exuberance :slight_smile:

No problem, I’ve tried to contact the Log4r developper regarding some
bugs
and I’m happy that the project revives. I have a big project and once
I’ve
added Log4r support, it became much easier to debug.

the defined logging levels to the syslog logging levels. If the user
has not defined any logging levels, then the syslog levels become the
default (i.e. the current Log4r behavior).

Ok, I’ll let you know on this. In the meantime, can you check why the
loggging gem is not available ? I think you should contact rubyforge
people.
It’s maybe related to the fact that somebody else already released a
logging.tgz file, as package names are locked to a project for security
reasons.

Cheers,
zimbatm


#6

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 04:13 +0900, Jonas P. wrote:

Ok, I’ll let you know on this. In the meantime, can you check why the
loggging gem is not available ? I think you should contact rubyforge people.
It’s maybe related to the fact that somebody else already released a
logging.tgz file, as package names are locked to a project for security

Nah, only gems are affected by the namespace thing since they are the
only things for which RubyForge builds an index. All the other files
are “scoped” by their project’s name.

Yours,

Tom


#7

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 17:53 -0500, Tom C. wrote:

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 04:13 +0900, Jonas P. wrote:

Ok, I’ll let you know on this. In the meantime, can you check why the
loggging gem is not available ? I think you should contact rubyforge people.
It’s maybe related to the fact that somebody else already released a
logging.tgz file, as package names are locked to a project for security

Nah, only gems are affected by the namespace thing since they are the
only things for which RubyForge builds an index. All the other files
are “scoped” by their project’s name.

By the way, I added a section to the RubyForge FAQ on this whole
RubyForge gem index/namespace issue:

http://rubyforge.org/docman/view.php/5/460/faq.html#gemnamespace

Comments/questions welcome,

Yours,

tom


#8

2007/1/19, Tom C. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:

Nah, only gems are affected by the namespace thing since they are the
only things for which RubyForge builds an index. All the other files
are “scoped” by their project’s name.

By the way, I added a section to the RubyForge FAQ on this whole
RubyForge gem index/namespace issue:

http://rubyforge.org/docman/view.php/5/460/faq.html#gemnamespace

Comments/questions welcome,

Thanks for all the time you took to solve that issue. Your solution
looks
right


#9

On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 16:56 +0900, Jonas P. wrote:

By the way, I added a section to the RubyForge FAQ on this whole
RubyForge gem index/namespace issue:

http://rubyforge.org/docman/view.php/5/460/faq.html#gemnamespace

Comments/questions welcome,

Thanks for all the time you took to solve that issue. Your solution looks
right

Thanks! I’m just glad that security hole has been found and closed.

Yours,

Tom