Interesting point Simon.. more below
Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/10/2004 10:57:47
PM:
> Hi Richard,
>
> The class javadoc for the EnterpriseLog class states:
>
> Please note that a specific implementation of Commons Logging can choose
> to support either the simple logging interface (represented by [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Log}) or the advanced logging interface (represented by this
> interface). A user of a Common Logging implementation that supports
> only the simple logging interface will not be able to instantiate a
> <code>EnterpriseLog</code>.
>
>
> Given the following code:
>
> if ((day == saturday) || (day == sunday)) {
> EnterpriseLog log = EnterpriseLogFactory.getLog(...);
> log.error("This code doesn't work on weekends");
> }
>
> are you proposing that this code will run fine all week, then suddenly
> throw a runtime error on saturday if the underlying log implementation
> does not support "enterprise" logging?
As you noted below, the desired behavior is that logging will always
succeed. If I recall correctly, the current JCL will fall back to a
SimpleLogger if it cannot locate an explicitly configured Log
implementation. Two points worth considering on this topic:
1. Fall back is "ok", BUT - we *MUST* log an error/info/warning message on
this event, so that there is a clear understanding that something is not
as it should be. The "silent fail & fallback" of the current JCL has to
go.
2. A "simple" EnterpriseLog implementation must be made available, to
allow the behavior you describe below.
>
> While this example is a bit contrived, I can certainly envisage an app
> put together with modules, one of which uses "enterprise" logging, and
> is only invoked under some conditions...
>
> Incidentally, it looks like JCL itself will throw an exception on
> startup if an explicit log implementation is specified (eg via system
> properties or commons-logging.properties) but that implementation cannot
> be found. This is quite in contradiction to the log4j logging approach,
> which is that an app should *never* fail just because logging fails. I
> prefer the log4j philosophy myself...
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze
IBM WebSphere WebServices Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
