On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Heiko Seeberger <heiko.seeber...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 14 February 2010 20:10, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote: >> >> 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 :-) > > Even if (probably) not needed, we should try to name it the best possible > way. Changing now causes no pain at all, but later ... you know.
Agreed. Suggestions? /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.
