> > The one drawback I see with going this route is that creating a really > > generic tool sometimes means that the user interface isn't as > > intuitive. > > > > For instance, I think it would make for a cleaner UI to > > provide the user > > of a FileAppender a checkbox for bufferedIO and Append, and a spinner > > control for the BufferSize (or maybe an editable combo box) > > rather than > > providing a table that would list each of the properties and > > would use a > > different editor depending on the datatype (like the property sheet in > > VB or the guibuilder I've been writing). > > Maybe it has specific gui for "known" appenders, but falls back to a generic > table for "unknown" appenders. Maybe developers could include "plugins" > that describe an interface that can be used to display their settings. But, > there is always a generic fallback. That's exactly what I was was thinking. I figured the plugin approach would allow appender designers to provide a nice UI for their appenders, and then a generic one would cover us. I would intend on providing nice UI plugins for all of the appenders shipped with log4j.
> > But I don't know. Maybe a good property sheet using reflection would > > rock over all. I'd be able to reuse a lot of my other code (its > > LGPL'd), and it really WOULD provide for all different appenders. > > There is raging debate going on right now within the jakarta committers > about the use of LGPL code. Even though LGPL is supposed to be less > restrictive than GPL, it still is not compatible with the way java "links" > code, and by Apache policy, LGPL code cannot be included in Apache projects > (at least that seems to be the gist of what I have read). And all code > released by Apache has to be released under the Apache 1.1 license. Just an > fyi. Shouldn't be any problem since the gui builder code is all mine, and it hasn't been released publicly yet. > > Incidently, I was using java 1.4 for its java.beans package and > > functionality. > > It would be nice if it could run under jdk 1.2 or later. Have you looked at > the commons-beanutils? I initially tried to use beanutils for the project, and to some extent it worked well. I just found after 3 or 4 refactorings that the stuff that was bundled with Java was much better suited to what I was trying to do. I can look at it again for this project. I understand wanting to make this available for old versions of java. Richard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
