Resend, since I might now be subscribed. Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam R. B. Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: Re: Starting work on UGLI
> > > > 2) I know C-L has a hard life, it is trying to sit on top of so much, > > > but I find it's need/attempt to call/configure logging packages a > > > problem. I don't know if I am expressing some form of IOC thought > > > here, but when working on Depot, even C-L falls down. We (as a > > > library) wanted to plug in to Ant, and we didn't want to force the C-L > > > to Ant bridge. Basically, we wrote our own > > > (yet another) logging that was simply a listener pattern, and plugged > in an > > > Ant logger listener, or a commons logging listener, as appropriate. > Works > > > nicely, but I don't want to write that code. I'd like UGLI as a logging > > > abstraction that all containers can agree upon (Ant as a container, an > > > application as a container) and have the environment provide it. > > > > When no action is taken by the user to set up a logging context, UGLI > > will default to NullLogger. Thus, if you want logging the user has to > > take explicit steps. Otherwise, UGLI will just be silent and will not > > interfere or hamper your application. Would that approach have worked > > for you? > > I think one needs to consider multiple use cases, but the one I was coming > from was as some library code. As library code, I just want to fit inside as > many "containers" as possible, and fit into the logging infrastructure they > have established. As it stands Ant's and C-L do not play nicely together > (even with that plug-in attempt). [Sadly dependencies of mine used C-L, so > their output don't come out when the user types "ant -debug" or > "ant -verbose".] > > Basically, I'd like my code to say log.[debug|info|error|warning|fatal] and > nothing more, ever. If the end user/container turns on logging, it comes > out -- into it's output, in it's form. > > I hate to admit it, but I suspect I using the basic JDK logging interface it > likely all I really ought use, since I don't need/wish to support old JDKs. > I know the issue becomes which Logger object does one call those methods on, > but (as a user) I'd really rather not care too much. I know there are pros > and cons to configurations/filtering approaches, but I'd just like simple. > I'll pass my name (or my package, or classname) if the logging subsystem > would like, but I'd like not to care about strategies. > > Hmm, I guess I do just want a logging 'aspect' don't I? You thought about > working on that? > > regards, > > Adam >
