On 4/3/02 3:14 PM, "Berin Loritsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >> On 4/3/02 2:47 PM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I went round-and-round with Berin a few months ago before >> he convinced >>> me on this point. The LogKit API provides a simple >> framework based on >>> IoC that "wraps" various loggers. It became clear that adding the >>> popularly used "pull" (Log4J, JDK 1.4, and other loggers) model to >>> the Avalon LogKit was counter to their design goals. At about the >>> same time the commons logging API was released. >>> >>> Perhaps what we need is pointers (in both components) to the logger >>> supporting the "other" philosophy: >>> >>> If you want "pull", use commons logging. >>> If you want "push" and IoC, use the Avalon LogKit. >>> >>> And again, DON'T propose trying to merge the two, their goals are >>> orthogonal. >>> >> >> But why do I have to use LogKit for IOC? It's a general idea >> - shouldn't be tied to one logger impl.... > > It's no longer tied to one logger impl. > > Avalon's Framework has another logger abstraction developed at the > same time as commons logging--with the goal of being used in an IoC > framework (namely avalon). There are abstractions for LogKit, > JDK 1.4, and Log4J--along with a couple direct impls for ConsoleLogger > and NullLogger (for output to System.out or swallowing all log > messages respectively). LOL So Avalon has a generic logger interface too? Oi. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting Uncertainty breeds confusion and confusion breeds despair. - Ceki Gulcu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
