On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Heiko Seeberger
<heiko.seeber...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 14 February 2010 14:40, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've tried to keep it as simple as possible, really just a Scala layer
>> on top of the SLF4J api.
>
> I think that's a very good decision!
>
>>
>> Note that no backend (log4j or logback) configuration is included. This
>> has to go into lift-util to use runmode etc.
>>
>> You can have your choice of a nested logger:
>>
>> object MyObj extends Logging {
>> logger.info("nested Hello")
>> }
>>
>> or direct access:
>>
>> object MyObj extends Loggable {
>> info("direct Hello")
>> }
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I really like to have Logging and Loggable, but I would call them vice versa
> and change Logging to Logger. As an example think of Iterable and Iterator.
> In general an Xable gives you access to an X. Hence we should have Loggable
> with a method logger that returns a Logger and we should have Logger to mix
> in all the logging methods. Why change from Logging to Logger? Because we
> should call it what it is, not what it does.
Makes sense, and that was actually close to what I had initially: The
Logger trait was called LiftLogger, but this clashed with the current
LiftLogger.
This name (Logger in current code) probably doesn't matter too much as
it's usually not needed in client code. But AbstractLogger doesn't
sound very nice :-)
/Jeppe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
