On 08.02.2004 01:34:16 Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - avalon and logging for the base library.
> > 
> The avalon jar is indeed quite small (only 25K or so),
> but this dependency I'd like us to eventually get rid
> of in favor of what Xalan does with its messaging and
> i18n instead.  (I suspect AH or RX don't bother with
> loggers, they're probably more like Xalan as well.)

I don't think logging is the same as providing user-friendly and
localized error messages. I'd agree that Xalan's approach is good and we
could or even should adopt it but IMO it doesn't replace logging which
is primarily for debugging purposes (be it for Java developers or
stylesheet producers). It is debatable whether the Avalon Framework's
logging approach is the best. I don't think so. There are situations
where I should have use Commons Logging instead of Avalon Logging (PDF
library for example). Both have their uses. I'll gladly outline if

> Xalan appears to route all messages through an
> XMLMessages.java [1] (with a couple of subclasses for
> XPath and XSLT-specific messages) with the result
> going to stdout by default.  (I don't know what
> happens in embedded usage, whether those messages can
> be re-routed to a logger of the user's choosing.) 
> Also, they use message constant enums so they can get
> the messages to appear in multiple languages. [2]  

The problem I have with Xalan is that they do no logging. Sometimes it
would be good to get some feedback on what is going on inside. At the
time where I had to do some intensive error searches inside Xalan I
encountered a lot of System.outs that where commented out (I don't know
if this has changed in the meantime, though). Indicates that they should
have used a logging package. And when you have a software live at a
customer site you will love the chance to change the debug level to see
what's going on inside when you're in trouble.

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to