I would like to see SimpleLogger be where custom interfaces are extended. Now you can't forget that if we provide a default implementation class, that will already implement Logger. So it's very easy to cast directly to Logger if necessary to access your standard methods.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Nick Williams < nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > Okay, I see now. I got confused by what Gary said: > > That's brilliant! The Logger interface contains methods like log(Level, > ...) and StandardLogger extends Logger to provide info(), warn() and so on. > > > This let's me create a custom Logger (DEFCON example) AND an extension to > StandardLogger with refined levels (NOTICE, DIAG, VERBOSE). > > > Nick > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> >> wrote: >> >> However, what I WOULD be okay with is creating a SimpleLogger interface >> for things like log(Level, ...), etc. and having Logger extend SimpleLogger >> to provide info(), warn(), and so on. This would be backwards compatible >> and abide by industry norms. >> >> > This is what I was recommending. Sorry for any confusion. > > Paul > > > -- Cheers, Paul
