I'm torn...
Seriously, the logging issue and potential number of "different loggers"
desired by various members of the community is astonishingly large.
Commons logging has, in my mind, a responsiblity to live up to that name...
or just become another toolkit.
On the other hand, I respect the desire for backwards compatiblity...
Can we consider releasing the latest changes to commons logging (1.1) and
begin c.l 2.0 with the goal in mind of CONTINUING TOWARDS a commons logging
interface, even if that means some SMALL degree of incompatiblity (and by
small I mean package name changes... that's MINIMAL and the end results
easily justify the change ).
On the other hand, I DON'T like separating the interface into a separate
jar file from the implementation (it's RAINING jar files over here). I
WOULD be happy with building multiple jar files, each containing the
"common" interface and a single supporting framework. The versioning would
get tricky... would need to version interface separately from frameworks...
<ras>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
"Craig R.
McClanahan" To: Jakarta Commons Developers
List
<craigmcc@apache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.org> cc:
Subject: Re: [logging] Need
interface... VOTE
04/05/2002 10:57
AM
Please respond
to "Jakarta
Commons
Developers List"
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> Yes, I have a LogFactory as well - same interface as o.a.c.l -
> implementation free - the o.a.c.gl package contains no impl of anything
so
> you can have the gl.jar in your classpath and all is well if you do your
own
> impl...
>
Java doesn't let you declare static methods in an interface, so you can't
do what the static methods in LogFactory do for you that way. At best,
you'd have to split the factory finder part out into a "real" class with
static methods someplace for those who like that discovery method. The
fact that this code would still exist (even in a different package) is
bound to offend *somebody's* sensibilities :-).
By the way, I'm -1 on any change that is not backwards compatible in
commons-logging 1.x. Geir's original proposal would not have done that
(and I'm -0 on that at the moment), but the "deck chair rearrangements"
proposal sure would.
Craig
--
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]>
