On Feb 23, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
yes, it is pretty brutal.� I thought if it was 'in the best interests' of the user we could consider it, but as I said, I don't really understand the use cases that may benefit from sub-classing Logger.
I've had several discussions with log4cxx users who have been insistent to extend it in places that weren't designed for extension when they could accomplish the same objectives using the places that were designed for extension. The lack of a "final" on log4j seemed to indicate to them that everything was open for extension and that I should have made all (or most) of the functions virtual. I think Item 15 in "Effective Java" says it best, "design and document for extension or else prohibit it". However it is always harder to take something away.
I know that early Java compilers had problems with final member variables that were initialized in constructors. I assumed that the scarcity of final modifiers in log4j probably was due to that, but I hope that is no longer an issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
