J.Pietschmann wrote:

> If you've looked into a fair number of open source projects, 
> and add projects from your work environment, you'll probably 
> see certain abstractions over and over again.
> Counting the number of reincarnations, logging certainly 
> comes into the top ten, I guess even at position three after 
> configuration services and i18n. The tendency to have a 
> project specific abstraction, however small, isn't new, check 
> out the history part in the syslogd docs.
> If you are interested in a list of other recurring themes 
> beside the three named above:
> - service discovery, often including loading code or data
>   from a directory or some other repository
> - URL resolving
> - URI, URL, pathname and search path handling as Strings
> - command line argument parsing, maybe as part or complement
>   of a configuration service
> - object pooling, in particular network connection pooling
>   and multiplexing
> - XML creation
> - Java object persistence
> The list isn't complete of course.

OK. Still I miss your point. It could be any one of the following:
1. You are arguing against the "no external dependencies" idea.
2. You support the "no external dependencies" idea, and find it humorous
when someone has to reinvent the wheel to comply with it.
3. You support the "no external dependencies" idea, and think that there was
some more elegant solution that FOray should have implemented.
4. You agree with Jeremias that there is no need for logging information to
pass through an interface between two subsystems.
5. You agree that logging for such a system is not necessary.

The list isn't complete of course.

Victor Mote

Reply via email to