Well... yes... I was "rearranging the deck chairs". I move all
implementation out of the one package, and into another (btw, LogFactory is
an abstract class with some code specified, it's not an interfact).
How is that significantly different than what you proposed, other than your
proposal may preserve backwards compatibility.... which is goodness.
Also, I really dislike "LogUser" in that context... what's wrong with
"LogEnabled" as per Avalon (I know we are, again, circling back over old
ground :-), or "LogEnablable" :-).
<ras>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
"Geir Magnusson
Jr." To: Jakarta Commons Developers
List
<geirm@optonline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.net> cc:
Subject: Re: [logging] Need
interface... VOTE
04/05/2002 04:45
AM
Please respond
to "Jakarta
Commons
Developers List"
On 4/4/02 5:15 PM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK then, let's see what happens:
>
> I PROPOSE that the classes in commons logging be rearranged as follows:
>
> no change:
> org.apache.commons.logging.Log
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Jdk14Loger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JCategoryLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.LogKitLogger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.NoOpLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog.java
>
> rename package, and add JavaDoc to explain or confuse as appropriate:
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogFactory
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogSource (deprecate?)
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogFactoryImpl
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogConfigurationException
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.Log4jFactoryImpl
Isn't this just rearranging the deck chairs? The problem, for me anyway,
still exists...
All I want is a base 'commons component' with two interfaces (ok maybe more
than two - three)
o.a.c.genericlog.Log
o.a.c.genericlog.LogUser
o.a.c.genericlog.LogFactory
Where Log and LogFactory are just like the o.a.c.l interfaces, and LogUser
has a single method
setLogFactory( LogFactory );
That's it.
Then, if this gives me what I think it does, and if people grok what I was
trying to do, I would then propose
o.a.c.l.Log extends o.a.c.genericlog.Log
o.a.c.l.LogFactory extends o.a.c.genericllog.LogFactory
So thus, nothing changes for anyone or anything using o.a.c.l, but then
there would exist :
1) o.a.c.gl : a generic, lightweight contract for logging with the marker
interface I think would be useful.
2) o.a.c.l : multi-impl implementation of o.a.c.gl
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
The question is : What is a Mahnamahna?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
mailto:[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]>
