Oh! This is great Robert, such a logical and coherent justification to ignore a tested piece of code: "anything with peter's name".
That is what I call a reasonable argument. =:o/ Of course that we should consider the fact that Peter wrappers are tested and have no problems (while yours...) as a minimal detail. We probably should also discard this proposal by Ceki: http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/proposal.html where he describes a Logger class that has almost the same design as Peter's interface. The biggest difference is, of course, this method: public abstract boolean isEnabledFor(Level level); But then there is this mail from Ceki: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: cvs commit: > jakarta-commons/httpclient/src/test/org/apache/co mmons/httpclient > TestBase64.java > > > Rodney, > > You probably want to add these methods to your Log interface to > avoid expensive parameter constructions: > > boolean isDebugEnabled() > boolean isInfoEnabled() > boolean isEnabledFor(Priority priority) // probably not possible to add > > Regards, Ceki Did you notice the "probably not possible to add" bit? Anyway, maybe you also have problems with anything with Ceki's name! Or you just know better! Who are Ceki and Peter in the logging scene anyway? I really appreciate your logic. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:44 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default log > level] > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 08:06 PM, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > > That is what the wrappers I took from Avalon that I posted AGES > > AGO do! > > > > You are relearning all the stuff from zero instead of looking at > > tested code written by people with more experience on logging > > (not me - Peter Donald). > > > > I once saw a minimal common interface for logging from Ceki and > > basically it was very much as the one that Peter designed too. > > This means that the logging guys agree at least on this interface > > (and not much else (o;= ). > > > > It would be great to just learn from their experience, no? > > <sigh> i'd hoped that i wouldn't have to get into this </sigh> > > i know peter's views on logging pretty well. i think that the only way > that we'll ever achieve what we need - a minimal component-oriented > logging system - is by ignoring them and going back to first principles. > > i've said before that i'd be very happy to consider your suggestion as a > 'second generation commons logging package' but anything with > peter's name > anywhere near it is too divisive for me to even consider as a first > generation solution. > > - robert > > > -- > 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]>
