At 09:55 9/5/01 -0700, Steve Loughran wrote: >This seems a bit of tangential religious issue, but since i was adding a >skinny facade to my own code this week to swap between printing to the >console and log4j. I do understand why sometimes it is important to be able >to switch log systems. In this case I did it that way because I wanted a >redistributable version with minimal dependencies.
true but thats only if you want pluggable outputting - we want the other stuff primarily (UI, hierarchies, priorities etc) so will need to include that regardless. Out output will be to ProjectListener which will perform all the writing etc. >My preference would be that logging would be something provided by the >container executing the tasks; we could have the base heirarchy hand off the >actual output to some logging tool, I don't care which, as long as it is >skinny. Except that when Java1.5 adds logging we should eventually migrate >over to that framework. If the base logging framework does heirarchies and >things for free, then we've just saved a lot of work. It will be in java1.4 in java.util.logging - but unfrotunately thats a while off now ;( >Incidentally Jon, one comment of yours I do agree wholeheartedly is >"HttpUrlConnection is even worse." Isn't it about time we came up with a >decent apache branded re-implementation of this class that actually works >the way people want? try commons - there was a httpclient being implemented there ... I suspect it could be adapted to your needs. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
