Sh*t Costin! I was completely convinced that the String argument was the way to go and you had to come up with a technical argument that really makes some sense! =:o/
Now I am divided again! You and your object (bean?) counter habit! =;o) Well, I guess that your arguments make a lot of sense for software where performance is critical. Now, since you are also a security freak (like Peter Donald) I have a (Devil's Advocate) question: - What is the way to avoid that a "hostile logger" accesses the objects that are passed to it? Anyway, me thinks that it is not so natural that a "hostile logger" creeps into a system. Not as natural as an "hostile app" in a web/app service provider scenario. Have fun, Paulo > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:53 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE-REDUX] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > > (3) Change the "message" argument type from Object to String > > A big -1. > > Object in the interface will allow loggers to provide 'render'-like > capability. This would allow passing things like StringBuffer or > Object[] - that can be recycled. > > Think about an access log file - this would require about 5-6 > concatenations, etc. > > If some logger impl. doesn't provide 'renderer' - it'll still be useable > by apps that do not need it. The reverse is not true - if the API > uses Strings, apps will not be able to take advantage of advanced > loggers. > > Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
