On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, SPRINGER,IAN (HP-NewJersey,ex1) wrote:
> | > | More specifically, commons-logging explicitly declares > | configuration of > | the underlying logging implementation to be out of scope. > | > | > --Ian > | > > | > | Craig > > > Oh yes, you're right, I forgot to mention that. I think this is a mistake. > After all, initialization from a config file is something that all logging > impls will have. So a logging abstraction layer should provide methods for > abstracting that functionality. > The fact that the underlying implementations already support configuration is *exactly* why commons-logging should not duplicate this. Trying to identify a common set of configuration properties across all logging implementations sounds like an interesting challenge -- and not really worth doing IMHO. The only reason commons-logging exists is so that you can swap out the underlying USE of logging without having to modify every calling class. Configuration is a one-time thing, and the decision to use a particular implementation means you shouldn't have a hard time making the one-location change to your initialization code. After all, you'd have to do this anyway if you were *not* using commons-logging and were just using a particular logging implementation directly. > --Ian Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
