Michael L. Heuer wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2001, Earl Hood wrote: > >> My $0.02 opinion: From the goal statements on the jakarta web-site for >> Commons, it seems that Commons components should try to provide >> well-defined exceptions and let the component user manage any logging >> functionality (to support the goal of minimal dependencies). >> Well-defined exceptions, and support for listeners (where appropriate), >> should be sufficient to support a user in whatever logging system they >> choose to use. > > > Very well said. > > I'm not a voting member, but am against inclusion of log4j. > Throw appropriate exceptions. > > michael > Not all logs messages are exceptions. Debug logging, for example, is often the normal path of execution. Logs may also present information that should not be exposed to clients of the component. For example, it is entirely appropriate for a database connection pool to print out information about the size of the cache, whether new connections are being allocated, the hit rate for the cache, deallocation, disconnction of the physical db conn, and so on. All of which is properly hidden by the abstraction of the pool. Even suggesting that a client could depend on them by providing listener callbacks is a bad idea. Debug logs should be noisy. The control should come through enabling and disabling categories, not by controlling the priority. Assume that the java.logging.* package and log4j will coexist somehow. When JDK 1.4 is released, it will be a priority for enough people that the problem will be solved. It will be years until it can be blithely assumed that JDK 1.4 can be targetted. JDK 1.2 targetting is still controversial. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
