> Yes. That's an option, too. But this all started off as me volunteering to
> change strings that had been hard coded in LogFactory.getLogger() into
> something a bit more robust without doing a full-blown refactoring.
"A bit more robust": was it was broken? I haven't seen any bug report saying
that the logger was broken. Or any complain at all.
I do not see the added value of
LogFactory.getLoger(CLASS.getName());
vs.
LogFactory.getLoger("org.apache.xindice.client");
since CLASS must be changed. I do not think that these changes [although you
can argue that you have less Strings in your code] bring a HUGE added value to
Xindice so I propose that we postpone this conversation until:
- the tests are written
- all bugs are fixed
- the Javadoc is up-to-date
- the manuals is reviewed
- the website is published
- the howtos are written (Tomcat, Cocoon...)
- the code is optimized
in other words: there are other more urgent things to do than to argue
indefinitively over something that is not the core business of the application
and furthermore working fine.
Let's first fix what's broken before breaking what's working.
-Vladimir
--
Vladimir R. Bossicard
Apache Xindice - http://xml.apache.org/xindice
