On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote:
> On dinsdag 26 juli 2016 19:44:11 CEST Martin Klapetek wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > What do you think? If you like the idea, I'll polish up my branch and > will > > post it for review, so we can discuss the actual implementation. > > > > I think a possible better way could be to log each component into each > own > > file (in the same dir) with timestamps and function stamps and process > > stamps and everything and then merge those files using some automation > and > > sort by timestamp. Unless Qt on Linux actually handles concurrent write > > access just fine and in the correct order (I know it didn't on Windows > last > > time I looked). > > Potentially, yes. Is it a problem? No. > > The log file isn't critical, and *usually* components are able to write in > order (appending to a file doesn't take long). If the log ends up being > slightly corrupted, that's bad luck. Instead of implementing complex > merging > tools for i in "file1" "file2" "file3"; do cat $i >> output.file; done; cat output.file | sort > final.log ...not that complex :) Just the sort needs proper params depending on the timestamp. > or file-locking mechanism, having just these processes write to the same > file and cross fingers works well enough. It's a debugging tool, file > integrity is just not that important. > Dunno, doesn't seem all that useful to have a debugging tool that may or may not work, especially if it is ever going to be used by users to post in bugreports. What use would be corrupted logs to us? Might as well do it properly, especially when the added complexity can be just oneliner bash script. Cheers -- Martin Klapetek
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
