Does that mean you put everything in one single class? The question is because you just added a STATIC public static void log( final String message, LogLevel level )
...and no constructor with a Logger parameter and no inheritance from a Logger. (You probably did it in a hurry so you could go back coding. (o:= ) I am just checking if that is the idea - merging the 2 classes in my post - which for me makes all the sense and is a nicer variation. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar http://www.krankikom.de http://www.ruhronline.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:56 PM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: Divergence from Avalon (was Re: [RT] Is Poolable Harmful?) > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:51, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > Wouldn't an adapter class for such especial cases be adequate? > > Something like (just a draft): > > Similar to what I did. Except mine looked like > > public class LogLevel extends ValuedEnum > > implements Serializable > > { > > private final static Map m_levelMap = new HashMap(5); > > > > public final static LogLevel DEBUG = new > LogLevel("DEBUG", 5); > > public final static LogLevel INFO = new > LogLevel("INFO", 10); > > public final static LogLevel WARN = new > LogLevel("WARN", 15); > > public final static LogLevel ERROR = new > LogLevel("ERROR", 20); > > public final static LogLevel FATAL_ERROR = new > LogLevel("FATAL_ERROR", > > 25); > > > public static void log( final String message, LogLevel level ) > { > ...do if statement here... > } > > > > > private LogLevel(final String i_name, final int i_value) > > { > > super(i_name, i_value, m_levelMap); > > } > > > > public static LogLevel getLevelForName(final String i_levelName) > > { > > return (LogLevel)m_levelMap.get(i_levelName.toUpperCase()); > > } > > > > public String toString() > > { > > return "LogLevel[" + getName() + "/" + getValue() + "]"; > > } > > > > private Object readResolve() > > throws ObjectStreamException > > { > > return getLevelForName(getName()); > > } > > } > > > This would allow to keep the current "clean" interface and > > use this class just for those especial cases. > > > > What do you think? > > Either way is good ;) > > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > ---------------------------------------- > "Liberty means responsibility. That is > why most men dread it." - Locke > ---------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
