Hi Everyone,
I'm newby in Avalon and C°, and I've got a suggestion (if stupid say
it).
Actually I do a evaluation for "services engine"for my client, and I've
promote Avalon.
The first set of services is for the migration of a old big java
application. This application have some target in services management,
log...
In the first step, we design a from scratch system, and the choice for
log is : "log is a service like anyother". So why, it's not a nice/good
idea to define a role Logger and use a LoggerSelector (use category
string as key) to get the instance of Logger.
In this case, there implementation for LogKit, Log4J... and the
configuration of Log system is independent of each Component
configuration (The default category a component can use is the ROLE
constant).
The problem is all Loggeable must be Composable to access
LoggerSelector.
In this case Configurator/and dynamic Reconfiguration can be develop and
specialize like any Service.
I will try this in my evaluation. If it's OK, then I could give my first
version.
PS: Sorry for my english.
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Leo Sutic wrote:
>
> > Peter, Berin,
> >
> > how will this work with individual log levels for each
> > logger/category/channel?
> >
> > If one adds two properties: logger and loglevel, like this:
> >
> > <component role="com.foo.Component"
> > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
> > logger="foo"
> > loglevel="DEBUG"/>
> >
> > Is there a problem when having multiple components using the same logger?
> >
> > <component role="com.foo.Component"
> > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
> > logger="foo"
> > loglevel="DEBUG"/>
> >
> > <component role="com.foo.Component2"
> > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent2"
> > logger="foo"
> > loglevel="ERROR"/>
>
> I don't really like specifying the LOGLEVEL in the
> component configuration. I think this is something that has to be
> specified at the class instantiating the loggers. Do you see yourself
> changing all loglevels in the config file when you deploy it for
> production?
>
> Giacomo
>
> >
> > If the two components share the same logger instance, I don't see how this
> > can work. Of course, the fact that I have no idea of how the contract for
> > getChildLogger is in respect to multiple children with the same subcategory.
> >
> > /LS
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: den 8 augusti 2001 15:22
> > > To: Avalon Development
> > > Subject: Re: JDK1.4 logging vs. LogKit
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:42, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > > > Peter Donald wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 06:10, giacomo wrote:
> > > > >>I have to confess that I don't know how this works in all my
> > > components
> > > > >>that are based on AbstractLoggable and have the logger passed in from
> > > > >>ExcaliburCM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just looked at ExcaliburCM and it doesn't really support
> > > separate loggers
> > > > > per component. Berin what do you think of adding an extra attribute to
> > > > > component definition so that you can specify name of logger.
> > > Then later
> > > > > on instead of doing
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking about that before. We need to add an attribute to the
> > > > component definitions (probably "logger"). Something like this
> > > to specify
> > > > it:
> > > >
> > > > <component role="com.foo.Component"
> > > > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
> > > > logger="foo"/>
> > > >
> > > > The attribute name is negotiable ;).
> > >
> > > logger works for me.
> > >
> > > > Think this will help, combined with your changes for the Logger?
> > >
> > > Which changes are you referring to? It should work without any changes.
> > >
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
David "Dwayne" Bernard Freelance Developer (Java)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\|/ http://dwayne.java-fan.com
--o0O @.@ O0o-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
