And I remember it differently, of course. I thought that there was enough interest from users/developers that the logging changes should be made, but the discussion went off into whether to wrap the Avalon Logger interface for better isolation from Avalon etc etc etc.
Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:59 AM > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: Handlers' streams RE: [Bug 11235] > > > I believe that this argument was settled with the commiters > deciding not to include logging in the API. Of course you are > entitled to produce your own extensions/frameowrks and > whatever you need to allow you to make useful mailet > applications, but they are not part of the API. d. > > > > I will provide patches and difs for logging. > > When we can > > review this and put it to the scratch (or whatever cvs) branch. So > > ones who badly need fine grained logging in mailet (like me for > > example) will be able > > to take it and test it. This change doesn't break mailet API, it > > just extend > > it a little bit, so there should be NO compatibility risk. > After testing > > (and time) this can go into main code. And when new mailet > API will be > > developed this change can be adopted or dropped out but > still this will be > > done when there is at least one implemented and tested approach. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:james-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
