[Mono-dev] [PATCH] EventLog implementation
gert.driesen at telenet.be
Sun Aug 13 11:31:33 EDT 2006
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-devel-list-
> bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Atsushi Eno
> Sent: zondag 13 augustus 2006 17:15
> Cc: mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] EventLog implementation
> Gert Driesen wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com
> >> [mailto:mono-devel-list- bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Atsushi Eno
> >> Sent: zondag 13 augustus 2006 15:32
> >> To: Gert Driesen
> >> Cc: mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] EventLog implementation
> >> Hello Gert,
> >> Here are my thoughts:
> >> - As I mentioned at #mono, Current code end up to have
> >> *no* implementation from the point of already-built
> >> System.dll. There should be ways to enable local file
> >> impl. and winapi impl. without rebuilding System.dll
> >> Using environment variable would be mandatory. Having
> >> configuration section would be optional goodness.
> > I'll look into adding this later.
> >> - You don't mention that which you are targetting exactly
> >> when you talk about registry stuff, so I'm guessing
> >> the worst case i.e. you are also trying to make changes
> >> on local file based implementation with related to get
> >> log store.
> > Not sure what you mean with this. Registry is indeed used for event
> > log registration (for both win32 event log, and log file
> > implementations), and I think we should keep it that way.
> I never insisted that you should *remove* registry based log location
> retrieval. There is nothing you should worry about that.
Ok then ;-)
But you want a way to disable the registry stuff ?
> >> I prefer having different option i.e. current environment
> >> variable based solution, than *totally* relying on the
> >> registry, since it would rather make debugging difficult
> >> than reducing little coding cost.
> > I understand your concerns, but in this case I think its important
> > enough to maintain compatibility with MS.NET.
> No, you don't truly understand my concern. There is nothing "important"
> to kill alternatives for indicating log location.
> > If the only thing you want to do is write to local log files, you
> > should use a logging framework. No ?
> No. I have been speaking about debugging. Your "formal beauty" helps no
It provides compatibility with MS.NET. I know you do not consider this to be
very important (and I have no problem with this), but do think the default
behavior should be compatible with the MS implementation.
We can ofcourse add ways alternate implementations. I certainly have no
problems with that.
> > Event log could be considered something Windows specific, and as such
> > I think users expect it to behave like the MS implementation.
> >> - Other than above, I support your plan. Thanks also to
> >> latexer, it became pretty cute.
> > I'm currently fixing quite some bug in the Unix Registry API (almost
> > complete now), and I'll await approval on that patch before I propose
> > a patch for the registry/event log file store changes.
> Sadly it is really going to take much longer than I expected.
No, not really. I'll have the Unix registry patch ready tomorrow, and the
registry/eventlog store patch by Tuesday.
> I should have just committed my code when Miguel showed go-sign.
> I'll make really harmless changes on current code so that EventLogs
> *just* work.
Ok, looking forward to these changes.
> I won't reply anymore to your messages today, so you should enjoy your
> birthday without hacking (still enough time to argue next week).
More information about the Mono-devel-list