At 11:29 1/5/01 +0100, Vincent Massol wrote:
>I would prefer to do the following :
>- write 2-3 asbtraction classes *for* Log4j, i.e. it is used as a
>developer's guideline and methodology. Like for example standardizing on
>using the full class name as logging Categories, ... The real intent of
>these abstraction classes are just to make sure all the commons packages use
>it in the same manner as much as possible (so that it is easier to
>understand the code and moving it to the Logging JSR later on will all be
>easier).
>- Make it a rule that if some component of commons need to do logging, it
>has to use Log4j.
>
>Is that too restrictive ? Thoughts ?
You have just started on the path to creating yet another framework if you
do that ;) One of the explicit non-goals of commons ... You have also
blocked usage by a number of other apache projects. Way to promote sharing ;)
Would it be appropriate to say I told you so now or should I wait till
later ? ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
