On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 18:15, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > on 2002/12/8 2:37 PM, "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What about Avalon logging? It's better suited for server-side logging, > > and has its own abstractions that make it possible to use as > > implementations log4j, logkit or whatever. > > I prefer that we use commons-logging. > > I'm -1 on Avalon logging as the dependency simply because I like to have the > choice as to which logging package I want to use.
One thing we might consider is not requiring LogKit as the logger, but still use an IOC style of log configuration like in Avalon. In fact, we could still use the LogEnabled / Logger facade without restricting log configuration options. This may not be appropriate for t2 but I think it will make sense for t3. One of the nice things about IOC in this case is that the container can build / obtain the logger it provides in any way. Thus, for example, if you have a scenario where class loading discovery is not workable, you can eliminate it without having to touch the components, just the managers. -- jt, who is almost completely converted to avalon now. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
