| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
1563
|
Thu Dec 22 08:53:43 2005 |
 | Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | 2.6.0 | Re: Compile on Windows? |
| Mike wrote: | What version of Visual Studio do you use for compile Elog on windows.
I have downloaded the Tar from svn and am having some errors, but then I've go VS.Net 2003. I wondering if this was done with 6.0? |
Right now I'm using VS.Net 2003, but you should be able to compile it with 6.0, except that you have to redo the project file, which might not be backwards compatible. An alternative is to use gcc under cygwin, which is a free alternative for windows. |
|
1564
|
Thu Dec 22 08:58:25 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | 2.6 | Re: New docs? |
| PJ Meyer wrote: | Just looked at change log for 2.6
was wondering where the documentation for the new additions/changes is/are. |
I usually keep http://midas.psi.ch/elog/config.html up-to-date, but I agree that it's a bit hard to find the additions there, that's why there is the change log 
The ELCode is described on a separate page, which can also be accessed by clicking on the ELCode link below the text box of the logbook entry page. |
|
1566
|
Thu Dec 22 15:14:39 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | 2.6.0 | Re: Maximum number of LogBooks? Bug? |
| Mike wrote: | Is there a Maximum number logbooks?
I have run into a problem but I'm not sure if to call it a Bug or not. We have started using Elog to keep a work log for each of our production servers. After a short trial I put generated a config file using groups for all of our servers which is 294 logbooks. Almost every thing works except the config screen. You get a list of all the logbooks with the checkboxes for the email notifications. If you click save (Doesn't make a difference if you make changes or not) you get the following.
Error: Too many parameters (> 120). Cannot perform operation.
I was able to recompile using cygwin under windows after changing MAX_PARAM from 120 to 400. That fixes the problem, but eventually you get a stack overflow.
Any suggestions? I have considered separate instances running 100 logbooks each but I would like to have a global search.
Thanks for a Great tool. I've been using it as a personal log for sometime and was finally able to convince my team we sould use it. |
You're really pushing to the limit
The maximum number of logbooks is indeed 120. If you have too many logbooks, they are also hard to handle (too many check boxes in the config page etc.). What if you make not one logbook per server, but have a single logbook and use the server as an attribute, like
Attributes = ..., Server, ...
Options Server = Server1, Server2, ...
Now you can ask: How many options are possible for an attribute, and the answer is 100, which is even less than the number of logbooks. But you can make three logbooks, each covering 100 servers, and that covers your 294 servers. |
|
1568
|
Thu Dec 22 20:50:57 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | Linux | 2.6.0beta5 | Re: "Logkook dir" in top group [global] section ineffective |
| Yoshio Imai wrote: | There are also one question/request (you see that we use the elog extensively now ):
When searching for a particular event in our shift log using the "Find" function, it would often be useful not to go to the single entry, but to the page where that entry resides. This way we can see the whole context of the event. When clicking onto an entry in the "Find" result page, this takes us of course to the single entry, but could you add a function to go to the page instead. Alternatively, is it possible to include a button "Go to page" in the single entry view (it need not even be exactly +/-N entries around, the usual page partition would do)? |
I implemented that request. When you click on "list", it takes you to the listing page containing the current entry, which is even highlighted. Have a look at this forum if this is what you like. |
|
1570
|
Fri Dec 23 09:07:14 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | | 2.6.0 | Re: "Syntax of elogd.cfg" - Document |
| Edmundo T Rodriguez wrote: | | The document "ELOG - Syntax of elogd.cfg" is outdated! |
I forgot to update the web server, but the document distributed in the 2.6.0 package was up to date.
| Edmundo T Rodriguez wrote: | | Are we going to have an updated documented? |
I copied the actual version to the web server.
| Edmundo T Rodriguez wrote: | How much difference exists between the one posted as a reference
and new one covering all new options in ELOG? |
For the changes from one version to the other, have a look at the changelog. |
|
1575
|
Mon Jan 9 20:09:16 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | Linux | 2.6.0 | Re: "Logkook dir" in top group [global] section ineffective |
| Yoshio Imai wrote: | | One strange thing (maybe it isn't strange at all) is the following behaviour: when the list view is set to "summary", then the line containing the entry where we clicked "list" is highlighted, however when the list view is set to "full", it isn't. Is this "a bug, or a feature"? |
Was a bug. I have fixed that in revision 1591. |
|
1576
|
Mon Jan 9 20:19:32 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Linux | 2.6.0 | Re: HelpELCode needs to be present in "Menu commands"? |
| T. Ribbrock wrote: | | Another little issue I came across was this: I'm using "Menu commands" and "Guest Menu commands" in my configuration. When I logged in and started to create a new entry, clicking on the URL that is behind "ELCode" at the bottom of the screen (and accesses the help for the ELCodes) resulted in a "command denied". The only way to get around this was to add "HelpELCode" to "Menu commands" - but now it also shows up in the menus, which is not what I want. Is there any way around this? |
Thanks for reporting that problem. I fixed that in revision 1592. |
|
1577
|
Mon Jan 9 20:53:28 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Linux | 2.6.0 | Re: MS Fonts only in ELCode options? |
| T. Ribbrock wrote: | I'm just after installing 2.6.0 and marvelling at all the changes, especially ELCode (I was using 2.5.8 previously). However, I noticed that the "FONT" menu for ELCodes only offers Microsoft fonts  - something I usually avoid like hell when publishing web content, as I cannot rely on those being installed on the clients. As far as I can see there is no easy way to change this, short of patching the source - or is there?
I'd want to add at least options like "serif" and "sans-serif" and maybe some standard (Unix\?) fonts like "Helvetica". |
In revision 1593 I implemented a "Fonts = ..." option where you can specify a list of fonts to be shown on the list. I tried however the MS set of fonts on a Linux system, and found that the MS fonts got mapped to Unix fonts in a reasonable way. Even the Comic Sans MS font was avalilable. |