On 4/5/02 9:07 AM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. What I propose is a separate package - so that you include the o.a.c.gl jar when you just want the interfaces, and both (or just o.a.c.l) when you want the actual impl. Remember, I am coming from the POV that I already have logging (which could be based on log4j, logkit, system.out.println...) and just want a generic interface to it. > > 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" :-). I don't care about the name. LogEnabled is fine, but I was keeping the 'LogUser' moniker just so people who saw the first post have a clue... For the real impl, we'll change it. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting The bytecodes are language independent. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
