That's fine with me. If you look at the tone of my first email on the subject,
I was volunteering to clean up a minor thing, just to get familiar with the
code. I didn't think then, nor did I ever intend, to touch off this entire
thread on the proper way to do logging.
I'm truly sorry if I've offended someone or stepped on people's toes. My
intentions were good even if they didn't turn out that way.
I'll go back to reading code now.
--Kevin
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 02:26 am, Vladimir R. Bossicard wrote:
> > 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
