Panic, log and ToDo integration

language design
1

I am literally not clear if extended:

Logging Exceptions handling (panic) and ToDo

are internals issues or forum.

If you insist on a low level feature (, of course,) it is hard to argue against an essential added layer of abstraction. It's contradictory. Unless that is vendor territory for monetization.

The common wisdom seems to be to wrap existing external foss products and frameworks. Is this correct?

2

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding.

Are you asking about integrating logging and panics together? Or about features in FOSS in general?

If what you want is for panics to hook into the log system rather than print to stderr raw, then https://docs.rs/log-panics/ does that.

As for FOSS in general, I think your statement is correct? Wrapping projects in other projects is a common strategy to add new features.

Another strategy is to ask the project for new features. Or, you can implement the feature yourself. Then ask (via a Pull Request) that your changes be included in the project.

If this doesn't answer your question, could you elaborate on what your question is?

3

Hi thanks I thought the same thing too. By way of example I really support this for logging:

Quote:

In executables:

In order to produce log output, executables have to use a logger implementation compatible with the facade. There are many available implementations to chose from, here are some of the most popular ones:

Simple minimal loggers:
    env_logger
    simple_logger
    simplelog
    pretty_env_logger
    stderrlog
    flexi_logger

Complex configurable frameworks:
    log4rs
    fern

Adaptors for other facilities:
    syslog
    slog-stdlog
    android_log
For WebAssembly binaries:
    console_log

Executables should choose a logger implementation a... End Quote.

I think this provides guidance for concept and strategy and initially looks good.

I would use similar approach to the ToDo and exceptions with some built in extetnal integration and default impl.

In terms of integration they should get references to each other's types but in particular fully integrate to git macro data, MAPI and wherever you think sensible. Regards Dave H.

Seeing you put it all under the hood in the first place. Lol. You low level techs are amazingly easy to talk to.

4

I am gonna suggest W3C and OWL standards compliance where it makes sense.

RUST + OWL. Imagine that...

5

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.