On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:50 am, Joseph Ottinger wrote: > I've got another (yes, yet another) logging framework planned, and I'd like > support for it in commons-logging, but a few questions come up before I > write my own wrappers: > > 1) Is commons-logging still aimed at the 1.1 API? Why? > > 2) Why don't you allow integral mappings to priorities, instead of calling > the actual methods like info(), etc? (My proposed framework has many, many, > many more levels, and they're not floodgated like commons-logging uses. In > other words, INFO+ERROR is a viable "level".) Without integral mappings, I > can make a mapper work, but there's absolutely no way to expose my logger's > (proposed!) power to commons-logging without some other invocation > mechanism. >
Because if you want that control, you should use the underlying logging framework directly. Commons-logging is there to enable logging by components in a framework neutral manner. It needs to be a lowest common denominator API. If it did use level enums, it would still need to define its own, since one framework's DEBUG is not going to be == to another framework's DEBUG. So you end up with exactly the same semantics as .debug(). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
