JDevlieghere added a comment. In D128321#3606172 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128321#3606172>, @clayborg wrote:
> So it seems like we are catering to our code organization here instead of > doing the right thing and relying on the host layer. I would rather move the > log code into the host layer or make log handlers actual plug-ins so that we > can do the right thing here. > > If we can make LogHandler objects plug-ins, where each plug-in has a name, > then this can be used to specify the different types of logs using "--kind > <name>" or "--type <name>". Then we don't run into these layering issues, > because essentially we have small LogHandler implementations here. Any > objection to making LogHandler subclasses into actual plug-ins? That wouldn't really solve my problem though. The plugin would still depend on host. And I would still need to depend on the plugin in Utility. So it's still a circle: Utility -> Log Handler Plugin -> Host -> Utility CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128321/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128321 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
