> -----Original Message----- > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On 4/3/02 2:32 PM, "Berin Loritsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> The current model used in log4j, jdk1.4, etc is pull - you > >> request a > >>> logger by name. Same thing for jdbc connections, resources, etc. > >>> > >> > >> In fact, there's an important philosophical issue about > logging here > >> as well -- who gets to choose the name of the logger (and > therefore > >> the log level)? > > > > In IoC based apps, the container. period. That is what IoC is all > > about. The container (or manager) makes all the decisions > about the > > component. > > And that's not what seems to be the philosophy of commons > logging. The component gets to choose, or that is how it appears. > > This is teaching me not to jump to conclusions :)
:) Yep. Different tools for different fools.... Seriously though, IoC is powerful when done correctly--but a PITA if done hap-hazardly. Which is why many developers stick to the static accessor approach. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
