I am also +1, but thinking the names are fine for the reasons stated by Geir.
It is just a marker interface, but if it was in commons-logging then Velocity/Struts/whatever wouldn't have to recreate it just to use it. Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:05 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [logging] Need interface... > > > 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: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]>
