On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:00:22 -0500
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@optonline.net>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>
> On 1/29/02 3:56 PM, "Waldhoff, Rodney" <rwaldhof@us.britannica.com> wrote:
>
> >> you may want to consider making the parameters
> >> Strings not objects. They were made strings so that
> >> you could render objects with Log4j. No other logging
> >> toolkit does this. Thus if this is allowed/used you are
> >> directly binding to Log4j anyway - why not use Log4j
> >> directly in that case?
> >
> > What's it hurt to leave Objects in there? String.valueOf(object) is easy
> > enough to do, and it supports the richer functionality provided by log4j.
> > Why go out of our way to restrict functionality that's otherwise trivial to
> > support?
>
> Is there other 'richer' functionality in other logging systems that you may
> want to support also?
>
I might want to write my own "in between" wrappers (application specific)
that are object-aware, and that then pass the message on to the underlying
logging system.
Turn the question around, as well. What is the technical benefit in
changing the argument to String?
> I see peters point, although I am suspicious of his motivation :)
>
Can we please cut the personalities crap and talk about technical things
for once? Even with smiley faces, this is getting pretty old.
> (And I see your point too...)
>
> geir
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|