My poor choice of wording. I really meant "any concerns" rather than
"any objections". Thanks again!
Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 23, 2006, at 8:05 PM, Kevin Williams wrote:
Thanks for your input. I enjoyed the "evils of common logging" link.
So, if we avoid JCL then my next suggestion would be to use either
Java logging or log4j directly and our users will need to deal with
the -- possibly -- separate logging system. Are there any
objections to this route?
Hopefully you didn't think I was "objecting" to using clogging (it's
the DAS peoples' decision) but was just trying to save you the pain I
had using that. Not knowing all of the requirements I would probably
do one of the following:
1. Use log4j and for people that wanted to use DAS with another
logging solution have them add an appender that pipes the information
somewhere else
2. Externalize logging like SCA. The bootstrap would provide a
MonitorFactory implementation that would be responsible for creating
implementations of a specific logging interface. You could create an
environment property that points to the factory impl to instantiate
and have a constructor that takes an instance. The factory could then
delegate to something else and you could have a default that uses
reflection and sends everything to Log4J. This has the advantage of
allowing for strongly typed logging as well as not forcing things to
go through log4j (which may not be that big of a deal). Each
subsystem would be responsible for using the monitor factory to
create monitor implementations for particular components.
Jim
Thanks,
--Kevin
Jim Marino wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
