cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <gian...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Use UGLI as logging abstraction (Re: [RT] Logging in 2.2)
Date Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:42:24 GMT
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:26:12 +0100, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org> wrote:
> >> IMO this only leads to mixing of concepts.
> >
> >
> > What concepts? Remember that python and Java 1.5 have this capability,
> > because it's useful... are they both so wrong?
> 
> No ...it *is* useful!! ...a variable amount
> of parameters!

Bah, I don't like varargs that much, it's just syntax sugar adding
opacity in exchange for a few keystrokes. The compiler is changing
varargs into arrays, and the receiving method needs to be written
against an array anyway, so why bother?

> >> Some people will
> >> use the "{}" some won't. To be honest I would not feel very happy
> >> with UGLI since IMHO this interface is only half-backed. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > Half baked because it has "the parameter stuff"?
> 
> Either make it use the 1.5 stuff (and make
> 1.5 a requirement) or leave it out ...but
> this mixture is what I call half baked.
> 
> > Remember that log4j uses that interface. Is log4j also half-baked?

Not quite, but still this shaky interface adds up to the list of Log4J
poorly engineered stuff that makes me wish for an interface to isolate
myself from it (even though I do reckon that we have to suppport it
given how pervasive it has become). UGLI looks like the less worst
alternative, so I can digest it. But getting to like that... well,
that's entirely another issue.

Ciao,
-- 
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. -  http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance: http://www.orixo.com

Mime
View raw message