> > What are your personal thoughts regarding adopting the Jakarta Commons
> > Logging API? That is what other Apache projects seem to be doing as the
> > common denominator; it is, actually, its raisan d'etre. It works with
> > Log4J, JDK 1.4, Avalon LogKit, and can be hosted on any other logging
> > implementation.
> My opinion is sill the same, I don't believe that offering logging as part
> of the API is a good idea because:
> IMHO it violates the seperation of concerns between mail processing, our
> concern, and logging, not our concern.
Almost no application's primary concern is logging. James has exactly the
same concern with logging that other server applications, such as Apache and
Tomcat, have: the need to record information about the application's
operation. Providing an API is not the same as providing a mechanism.
Adopting the Jakarta Commons Logging API would be one way to provide a
standard contract without specifying the runtime mechanism. But log(String)
and log(String, Exception) are insufficient.
> Anyone wanting enhanced logging capabilities can use any logging API they
> choose within their mailets.
IMHO, this is chaotic and would make it almost impossible to follow the
pipeline. Administrators don't need 101 mailet logs running around like
firehouse puppies. We need a controllable and coordinated log of
information.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
