On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 13:05 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > My document here > http://people.apache.org/~skitching/jcl-req.txt > describes a specific scenario where I think static binding doesn't work > (see b4) - and it is quite a reasonable requirement I think. Of course > there are many scenarios where static binding is a very good solution. > I'm thinking that the best solution is one where the user can select > static binding for the majority of cases (ie deploy a simple jar that is > statically bound), but drop in a more dynamic factory class in the > problem scenario. Essentially, this results in merging of the current > SLF4J and JCL approaches, and I think it's entirely feasable (and even > without breaking existing code). This should give performance and > simplicity for most users (static) with the ability to use a more > dynamic approach in situation b4. See my post coming soon...
+1 (i think i know what you have in mind but i won't steal your thunder...) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
