On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > In other words, you also want a 'push' model for the logger. Curently each > > component is supposed to 'pull' the logger. > > Pull? From where?
Log log=LogFactory.getLog( MyObject.class ) ( or by string ). The current model used in log4j, jdk1.4, etc is pull - you request a logger by name. Same thing for jdbc connections, resources, etc. > What's Log.getLog() ? > > I am looking at o.a.c.l.Log and there is no getLog() method... LogFactory.getLog(). It used to be a shortcut in Log too - my memory is overloaded at the moment. > > +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. > > Here's the idea - we want to have a marker interface that a component (or > tool, in our parlance) can implement such that any framework, container, > code, app, thingy, servlet, (you get the idea) that supports commons logging > can look for and invoke, handing the Log interface to the component to use. > > If the container, framework, code... doesn't support that, so be it. No > worries... The component or tool won't log. Just for the record, I think the default if no logger is explicitely set is to get a logger using the normal pattern. > Ok. This wouldn't change the Log interface - it would be an additional > interface that is in fact optional - if a component/tool doesn't implement > it, fine. If a framework/servlet/app/etc doesn't look for it, fine... It'll still be part of the exposed interface of commons-logger, which we try to keep minimal. I'm +1 - except my comment in naming ( but I have no better names, so can't complain ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
