On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:50, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> There are a couple of ways we can approach this. This is good to start
> with, and I agree, the LogTargetFactories can be specified as a classloader
> resource. It is good to have the markup available here as well so that
> users can extend the factories with their own. I would have a Hierarchical
> factory definition like the RoleManager in Excalibur.component. That way,
> we can specify the base definitions via classloader, and then we can
> suppliment or override the factories with other ones:
>
> <factories href="logfactories.factory"/>
>
> or even:
>
> <factories href="logfactories.factory">
> <factory type="bar"
>
> class="org.apache.avalon.excalibur.logger.factory.BarTargetFactory"/>
> </factories>
>
> The order of precedence would be:
>
> 1) <factory/> elements
> 2) <factories href="location.factories"/>
> 3) classloader
>
> If each one of those resources contained the "foo" factory, the one in the
> logkit file wins.
I like (1) and (3) ;)
How about any Jar that contains LogTarget Factories must create a file
META-INF/services/org.apache.avalon.excalibur.logger.LogFactory.xml
that contains all references available. This would mean that we no longer
need (1), (2) or (3) and it wouls still be very flexible (besides being
standard with other toolkits). Thoughts?
...snip...
> This all looks good.
>
> <skip excellent overview that should be made into an xdoc>
+1000
--
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 *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
