Ahh ok but now that we do not need this System.out stuff that's most excellent. You should have spoken out before this thread got this long bro :). My fingers are tired.
Hi Alex,I like the idea of the listeners, but I think we won't be able to use them in Studio.We're not launching the server in embedded mode. We're using a mechanism that launches the process as an external JVM, just like the Run or Debug configurations run in Eclipse.So I believe this would prevent us from using the listener inside Studio.Regards,Pierre-ArnaudOn Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Alex Karasulu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
OK this is not a big deal. We keep the log statements which are good to have but remove the System.out lines. Instead the listeners are notified, and the implementation registered to make Studio work right does a System.out.On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <email@example.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Alex Karasulu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:No that's not enough. Those info are used by studio to update the
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Martin Alderson
> <Martin.Alderson@salfordsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Martin these are not Log messages but purely System.out.println() method
>> > calls.
>> > Alex
>> Looks like there's both:
>> LOG.info( "Ldap service started." );
>> System.out.println( "Ldap service started." );
>> I think it could be useful to have ServiceListeners anyway, but for this
>> case I would have thought the usual logging configuration would be enough
>> (after the System.out.printlns have been removed).
> Oh yes u are right. I was not even thinking about the log statements which
> can be filtered via the log4j.configuration.
Server states. Using the logs is too complicated. If we don't want to
implement the listeners, then we should keep those System.out.