> I still think it is highly desirable to allow logging at more than one
> level, i.e. the typical error, warn, info and debug.
I agree.
> what is wrong with having the corresponding methods exposed via
> the MailetContext? There's no need to expose the actual logging
> mechanism to the mailets themselves
MailetContext.getLogger() does not expose the actual logging mechanism,
either. Just an object whose contract (interface) supports logging. If not
the Avalon fa�ade, then some other.
> no need to create a logging fa�ade
Poor design to simply add unrelated methods to things. If you know what the
methods are, then create the fa�ade. That way you can narrow the interface
to just that fa�ade as necessary.
> no need to expose Avalon Framework logging interfaces to the mailets.
Need? None. We could have a completely self-contained Mailet API that
includes all of the portable contracts. But that might not be the best way
to do it. For one thing, as others have argued, why should the Logging API
be part of the Mailet API? And the answer is that it probably should NOT be
part of the Mailet API. But SOME Logging API for Mailets should be part of
the Mailet Specification, and Avalon's fa�ade is a good choice.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
