On 4/3/02 1:54 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 4/3/02 10:49 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/02 1:12 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> on 4/3/02 10:09 AM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, if the parent instantiates MyComponent and forgets to call
>>>> enableLogging() *before* myMethod() is called, an NPE will be thrown and it
>>>> will not be clear as to why that NPE was thrown unless you go and look at
>>>> the source code. There is no open coding contract that says that
>>>> enableLogging() needs to be called first.
>>>
>>> I should also add that I don't like the fact that a parent is required.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not being clear - it doesn't *require* anything. If the method isn't
>> called by the 'parent', it doesn't log. Very simple.
>
> Look at the example code I posted. It was:
>
> class
> {
> }
>
> Who is going to be able to instantiate that class outside of the package?
No one - that code wouldn't even compile because myMethod() didn't have a
return type - so I figured you were illustrating the point about the logger.
NPE...
>
>> The alternative is to invent a new framework and write the components to
>> work with it explicitly - namely the road they were going down in
>> vel-tools...
>
> No. You simply make a dependency on commons-logging.
Why? What if they aren't using it? To use my DateFooTool, you have to
switch your entire logging infrastructure, rather than just wrap the Log
interface around what you have?
>
>>> If a parent is required, then it requires a framework to support the
>>> children (ie: that is what a parent really is).
>>>
>>> Sure, sometimes frameworks are appropriate, but I don't think they are
>>> necessary for Velocity tools which are just objects stuck in the context...
>>
>> There is no framework required here :
>>
>> if ( the instantiator of the class decides to look for LogUser
>> && the instantiator has a logger impl that implements Log interface)
>> {
>> call setCommonsLog() so the component can log
>> }
>> else
>> {
>> do nothing
>> }
>>
>> I am sorry if I'm not clear. My suggestion has nothing to do with a
>> framework - the idea of logging is optional for what I am thinking of...
>
> Sorry if I'm not clear, but I don't think you read the example code I
> posted.
Ok - try again - what's the problem?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Java : the speed of Smalltalk with the simple elegance of C++...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
