On 12 Dec 2002, Leo Simons wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 20:29, Daniel Rall wrote: > > As both implementations are roughly functionally equivalent, we need > > to look at their other attributes. The Avalon project is a server > > framework, not focussed on logging. The entire point of Commons is to > > develop very specific components shared as widely as possible -- its > > Logging component is focussed _specifically_ on logging. Unless > > there's some technical point which I've overlooked (please speak up if > > this is so), I'm going to choose the implementation with the narrowest > > focus every time. > > the technical point is that avalon is quite rigorous in its application > of Inversion of Control [1]. In an IoC application, use of static > factories is problematic. As Commons Logging is based on a static > factory, there's friction. > > Like I said yesterday, if you go IoC/SoC/COP (as in avalon-style), you > don't want static factories. If you go singleton factory model (as in > current stratum/fulcrum style), you probably do. > > best regards, > > - Leo > > [1] - http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/guide-patterns-ioc.html
Leo, will you point me to some descriptions of the problems associated with static factories? I didn't see anything on the IoC page. - Dan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
