Simon Pepping schrieb:
Glen,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:35:17PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gmazza 2004/06/20 05:35:17
src/java/org/apache/fop/render AbstractRenderer.java
Index: AbstractRenderer.java
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/render/AbstractRenderer.java,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.27 -r1.28
--- AbstractRenderer.java 20 Jun 2004 07:46:13 -0000 1.27
+++ AbstractRenderer.java 20 Jun 2004 12:35:17 -0000 1.28
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
/**
* logging instance
*/
- protected static Log logger = LogFactory.getLog("Renderer");
+ protected static Log logger = LogFactory.getLog("FOP");
/**
* producer (usually "FOP")
I am not happy with this change. Especially debug and trace logging may produce large amounts of output. Then it is an advantage if one can select for which classes or packages one wants to see the logging. That is possible if we use a separate logger per package, and for classes that may produce a lot of log output, even a separate logger per class. You can see my logging strategy in my recent patch.
In that patch I have also started to use the trace level for very detailed logging.
Let us discuss a common logging strategy.
Regards, Simon
Simon,
OK. I was taking a user-centric approach to naming (where they don't know much about FOP's internal objects, and *they* wish to have everything named "FOP" to separate it from other parts of their application.) However, a developer-centric naming approach is also fine for me, especially while we do heavy debugging. If you wish, feel free to switch it back.
Glen
