I would have to strongly disagree about "Category is the more intuitive
name". I do quite a bit of Log4j evangelism, and invariably the moment I
start to explain the API the very first question out of everybody's mouth
is, "'Category'? Why's the logging class called 'Category' instead of
'Logger' or something?" (Technically acurate or not, it's still far from
intuative. It's like trying to explain why the server machine in an
X-Windows environment runs the X-Windows client and your terminal runs the
X-Windows server. It makes sense in a weird sort of way, but you definately
shouldn't have to put that much thought into it.)
If a Logger logs, and a Category categorizes, which makes more sense when
you see it in a piece of source code?
log.error("Bad thing happened");
or
category.error("Bad thing happened");
In the first, it reads as "Log an error of 'Bad thing happened'." The
second way reads as, what?, "Categorize an error of 'Bad thing happened'"?
You can get it back to that your sending an error to a category in the
logging package, but why should you have to do that translation? Logger,
Level, and LogManager fit much more closely to people's way of thinking
about logging.
-Jim Moore
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:54 AM
To: LOG4J Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: Revised API Proposal
Well, it's easy to change a set of import statements in your applications
(org.log4j to org.apache.log4j).... plus if I remember correctly, changing
the package name was a requirement from the Apache folks.
IMHO, I wasn't too sure about changing from Category to Logger... Category
is the more intuitive name (considering how Log4J handles logging)... what
the heck is a "logger" anyways?
I say keep Category as it is.
-Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Endre Stĝlsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Revised API Proposal
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> |
> | Hello all,
> |
> | I just wanted to inform you that it is plain impossible to retain
> | backward compatibility with existing log4j (user) code and get away
> | with renaming Category as Logger. I just threw away hours of work to
> | retain backward compatibility.
>
> How can this be? Having both classes, deprecating the Category?
>
> |
> | Category will remain as the backbone class in log4j even if Logger is
> | perhaps a better name. Regards, Ceki
>
> If *you* _choose_ to do this, then your next .jar (read that as "your new
> log4j package") should be a _pure_ plug in replacement for the existing
> .jar, no need to change _anything_ _anywhere_, right?
>
> *You* changed the whole package name from org.log4j to org.apahce.log4j
> without lifting a eyebrow. But doing this Category->Logger move which is
> such a much more intuitive change you wont do.. Hmm..
>
>
> --
> Mvh,
> Endre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
