Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Ok - no enableLogging. But what about previous questions? To avoid > dependency, switch should be made, isn't it? > Yes. It's not required for 2.2 but we should definitly have it replaced for 2.3; the sooner the better, so if you want to go ahead, +1. :)
> >> Now, today, I think even this class can be removed as it creates an >> unnecessary dependency to the module containing it. If you want to log, >> just instantiate the commons logger in your own code and use it. > > But this adds a dependency on commons logging ;-) :) > > >> If you >> want to make it configurable, provide a setLogger() method like this >> abstract class does. > > IMHO it is cleaner to use a base class. No need to replicate logging > stuff everywhere - it is easier to extend from common base class (where > it is possible / makes sense) Yes, "where it makes sense" is the key here :) Getting the logger for commons logging is one line of code (and it's a short line), so you don't gain much if you have a base class with this one line. I think we can use the base class where we have a dependency to the module with the base class anyway. In other cases we should avoid it. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
