On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> What we need is a marker interface that indicates a tool wants a logger, and
> of course a method to give it the logger... I did a quick scan of the
> public API, and there doesn't seem to be one.
>
> So what I propose is to add an interface 'LogUser' or something like it (we
> can quibble about the name...)
>
> public interface LogUser
> {
> public void setCommonsLogger(Log log)
> }
In other words, you also want a 'push' model for the logger. Curently each
component is supposed to 'pull' the logger.
Well, I can't say no. I prefer the current Log.getLog() pattern, but
the whole point of commons is to be open and accept multiple points
of view, instead of forcing everyone to use a 'right' thing.
+1 on the idea - but maybe we can discuss a bit the details. LogUser
and setCommonLogger sounds a bit weird, and I'm not sure I understand who
will call the method.
In JMX terms, you would have a method setLogger( o.a.commons.logger.Log )
or setLoggerName( String ) and based on some config JMX will set the
logger. The Log???? interface will be extended by the component
MBean interface ( if any ). Seems a valid use case, and a good idea to
'standardise' the pattern used to set the logger in a component.
Maybe even a set logLevel() to tune the ammount of output the component
generates - i.e. a second filter pattern. I wouldn't say no, since the
pattern is in wide use in tomcat(3 at least, and other projects as well )
and quite usefull.
> As I personally believe that just being a commons committer doesn't give me
> the 'spirit-of-the-law' right to commit to the logger, I'll ask for some
> even vague hint of approval from the logger people before moving forward.
Good idea, given the amount of debate we had for each API change in
commons-logger. I would do the same.
However feel free to commit anything in the impl :-).
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
