> [ Leif ] > [ Leif ] > > I would rather not have Instrument have any dependencies. > > Maybe having an AbstractLogEnabledInstrumentable in the logger subproject?
[ Peter Royal] > That would introduce a dependency on Instrument in Logger, right? Yep. That doesn't seem right. Instrumentation is very light, but I feel that logging is lower-level than instrumentation. > [ Leif ] > > If the AbstractLogEnabledInstrumentable class was in addition to the > > AbstractInstrumentable class, then the dependency would only be at > > compile time and so users who were not using framework could still > > use the Instrumentable classes. I agree that being able to use the instrumentation stuff independently of framework is a desirable goal. [ Peter Royal ] > Create another subproject to that contains the class that will have a > dependency on Instrument and Logger? Perhaps even an "integration" > subproject to handle these cases. There has been discussion in the past about the creation of a general abstract base class which implements all the lifecycle interfaces, to ease the construction of components. Maybe now is the time for such a beast. It would have to be a new subproject, to avoid dependency tangles. Ryan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
