On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:34:26 Daniel Parker wrote:
> And a good one.  I'm not familiar with Velocity or it's particular
> approach,
> but the basic idea of separating logging interface from logging
> implementation is sound.  Components such as fop should not require a
> particular logging implementation, they should write to an interface and
> allow different implementations of that interface to be configured.  Any
> serious application that uses fop will have its own application wide
> logging
> facilities and will not be interested in fop's logging implementation.
> Regards,
> Daniel Parker

That is exactly the role of a logging implementation (logkit etc.) it takes
care of that.
By that argument, if fop is to work with velocity we should have an
interface that can use fop's logging interface or velocity. Then each of
those two interfaces will interface to logkit, log4j etc. Then logkit and
log4j have there own mechanism for directing output etc.

So instead we can simply say that fop uses logkit.
If you want to direct the logging to somewhere else (log4j, your own system
etc.) then you need to create a target for logkit that does that for you.

After all fop needs _a_ logging implementation.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to