Quoting Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:15, giacomo wrote: > > Another think I need to know: > > > > A Logger is defined by its Category, Targets and Priority. > > I would say that a Logger is define by it's Hierarchy and it's category, > much > like a Class object is defined by it's ClassLoader and name.
Ok, I know you can have separate logging hierarchies which all starts with a Category of "" (rootLogger) but how does this relate to the LogKit Configurator. I think we haven't specified having different hierarchies, only categories, right? Do we have the need configuring different Hierarchies like <hierarchies> <hierarchy name="foo"/> <hierarchy name="bar"/> </hierarchies> <targets> <target .../> </targets> <categories> <category name="..." ... hierarchy="foo"/> </categories> Giacomo > > > These three > > things cannot be changed for a given Logger, right? Well, I know that > > there are methods to change the Targets as well as the Priority for a > given > > Category but it makes no sense IIRC to have two Components which will > have > > the same Logger which differ in one of the aspects mentioned above > > (Category, Target, Priority). > > yep. As soon as you change target or priority it changes target/priority > for > all components using that logger. > > > BTW: After browsing through the code for several month now (mainly > > logkit and framework/excalibur) I have the feeling that specifying > > everything possible as final (classes, member variables, method > > arguments, local variables, and even catched exceptions) is good > > programming practice, is it? > > Not sure - I have never seen any research on it. It is great when > teaching > students at introductory level because it encourages understanding. It > can > also be useful for some compilers/JITs as instead of recycling variables > you > create new variables (and make them final) which is easier for compilers > to > optimize. The other advantage is that it is *sometimes* easier to read > as you > don't have to search through code to verify that value hasn't changed. > > So I guess I think it is better but I don't know of any real proof ;) > > 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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
