> Actually, I think both you and I are/were missing something in the > verbage. After our couple hour, sometimes heated, whiteboard > discussion today, I have a better understanding what Sean (feti) had > established and what Bob saw in it. I think his (Sean's?) made a bad > choice of words to use for what he calls 'loggers' is misleading as > it's really loggerGroups. So imagine groups of observers rather than a > bunch of observers, with there being at least a default group and > potentially some specialized groups. I was under the impression that > loggers were individual loggers. The objects registered within those > groups are what I think -we- would call loggers instead I think > they're called appenders(?).. (I still havent looked at the code). > Another distiction, which I maybe wrong about, is the observers in > this scenerio may or may not get the message object depending on > defined critera, I guess the 'logger' determines that. > > I still think it's an unnecessary level of abstraction and only serves > to complicate what should be a simple facility. There was a lot of > arguments for grouping observers into different groups and being able > to specify which group to use, etc.. I still dont think I see much > merit in it, but after the discussion we had, I think Bob has the > power to make it not as annoying as it appears to be at the moment. > I've got the faith.
Well... if we have a default logger, and if we needn't specify it explicitely, and if that default logger is not a logger, but a group of loggers, we can have both - Observer and explicit targets, right? > -Mike > PS: Bob and the other guys wont touch 'that book' because they -know- > it'll change their lives. Hahah. Sounds like serious fun you're having there in your discussions ;) _______________________________________________ agavi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev
