Simon Kitching wrote:
Fascinating! I haven't seen that trick before. An interface containing a
static method (via a little indirection)...cool.
Are you serious about this proposed API for the Log class, though?
I'm hoping that people will agree that the current Log API is ok (even
if it isn't 100% perfect), as that makes 2.x more backwards-compatible.
However if a change is made, I think it would make more sense to move to
the j.u.l/log4j solution (Log is abstract class) rather than invent yet
another design. However if you think
Log.Factory.getLog("foo")
really should be considered then we can start debating pros/cons.
I just wanted to mention this solution if Log had to remain an
interface, but I won't support it. I prefer to turn Log into an abstract
class.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
