I guess I will have to wait to be enlightened ;-( > -----Original Message----- > From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:11 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: cvs > commit:jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/log > ging/implLogFactoryImpl.java > > > That is not the problem. > > I do not want to implement a feature of some logger, what I > want is that the wrapper does not collide with the "features" > I am using. > > Besides, I can imagine a load of scenarios where multiple > logging hierarchies could be used without multiple class > loaders being involved. > > So, I don't like singletons on libraries and neither static > methods that support that idea. > > I hope I will come back with something more constructive > later but my CPU is too busy right now. > > > Have fun, > Paulo Gaspar > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:27 AM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: RE: cvs > > > commit:jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/logging/imp > > lL > > ogFactoryImpl.java > > > > > > <rant> > > > > Is this just re-inventing logging? Why are we doing all of this? > > Aren't we trying to just hide the complexity of > Log4J/LogKit/JDK1.4, > > while making them transparent? > > > > If you wanted domains/guards, wouldn't you implement this in the > > container that is using the logging API? > > > > I am just confused as to what we are trying to do. IMHO we > are *not* > > trying to implement every feature of every logging API, we are just > > trying to say: 'be friendly and please do not use > > system.out.println()'. > > > > If, for example Tomcat wanted to use commons-logging as > it's logging > > API with pluggable impls to LogKit, Log4J and java.util.logging, I > > would assume that it is the responsibility of the container > (Tomcat) > > to give each webapp its own logging environment. That way > my webapp > > could be using Log4J while Peter's webapp uses LogKit. Am I > > completely off base here? > > > > Bottom line is I don't want to participate in the complete > duplication > > of the existing 'big 3' logging APIs. I was interested in > > participating in a small, functional replacement for > > System.out.println() that would interact well when components using > > this API were plugged into a larger framework. > > > > </rant> > > > > Sorry for the rant, I just believe that we are starting down the > > slippery slope of wholesale duplication of all logging APIs. > > > > Scott > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:43 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: cvs > > > commit:jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/log > > > ging/implLogFactoryImpl.java > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > > > > > > What about multiple logging hierarchies? > > > > > > I think the best solution is to add an explicit 'guard' > or 'domain' > > > to the API. > > > > > > We don't have to do it now - but we must make sure it is > clear that > > > getInstance() _should_ return a local logger in a > container env - so > > > 2 different applications using the same name for a logger > will not > > > get mixed up. > > > > > > Using the thread class loader as the default 'domain' ( in case > > > getInstance( name ) is called ) is reasonable, given that most > > > containers will use that, and that the factory/logger > discovery is > > > dependent on the class loader. > > > > > > In a future version ( or in this one ? ) we can add the explicit > > > getInstance( Object domain, String name ), and different > apps will > > > be able to share a Log ( assuming they have access to a common > > > guard object ). > > > > > > Costin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have fun, > > > > Paulo Gaspar > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:40 PM > > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > Subject: Re: cvs > > > > > > > > > commit:jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/logging/i > > > > > mplL > > > > > ogFactoryImpl.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on 2/13/02 1:52 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > public Log getInstance(String foo) > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, that should be: > > > > > > > > > > public static Log getInstance(String foo) > > > > > > > > > > But you get my point... > > > > > > > > > > -jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For > > > additional commands, > > > e-mail: > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [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]> > > > -- > To > unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [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]>
