commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE-REDUX] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:39:46 GMT
Now this one comes through :)  Disregard this as I now agree with Geir's
debate on the subject.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Sanders [mailto:sanders@apache.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE-REDUX] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:40:27AM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > Out of the "discussions" yesterday, the proposal to release 
> > commons-logging 1.0 received a sufficient number of +1 
> votes to pass. 
> > Howeer, three issues were raised that should be settled 
> beforehand, in 
> > order to provide future users of this package with a stable 
> API.  I'd 
> > like to review them individually so we can move forwards.
> > 
> > 
> > (1) Attribution
> > 
> > As was pointed out, the developers of the Avalon framework, and the 
> > logging abstractions and implementations they have 
> developed, had an 
> > influence on the development of the Commons Logging API.  In 
> > particular, my implementation of the JDK 1.4 wrapper was based 
> > primarily on Avalon code.  Because of time pressures at the 
> time, and 
> > the fact that it was packaged with a different package 
> name, I spaced 
> > on the fact that this was actually Avalon code, and compounded the 
> > problem by omitting the author names of the original authors (Berin 
> > and Peter).  I apologize to both of them for that error, and have 
> > corrected it in the commons-logging source code.  Please 
> let me know 
> > if there are any remaining issues in this area.
> > 
> > 
> > (2) Add a trace() level
> > 
> > There was a suggestion to add trace(message) and 
> > trace(message,exception) methods to the commons-logging 
> API, with the 
> > idea that trace is a level "below" debug.  I'm personally OK with 
> > doing that *before* a 1.0 release, but will likely oppose it 
> > afterwards (adding new public methods to Java interfaces is hard on 
> > backwards compatibility).  Therefore, I think this is a 
> "now or never" 
> > decision.  What do you guys think?
> >
> 
> +1.  I think this should be done, if it would be vetoed at a 
> later date.
> I am happy to add this myself.
>  
> > 
> > (3) Change the "message" argument type from Object to String
> > 
> > In all of the current commons-logging API, the "message" 
> argument to 
> > all of the logging calls is an Object.  This allows passing 
> an Object 
> > on to the underlying logging implementation (currently 
> Log4J supports 
> > this, but it's also possible to write your own application-specific 
> > wrappers using things like the Chain of Responsibility pattern, but 
> > there is a potential security concern that the logging system might 
> > call methods on your object and modify its state.
> > 
> > I believe that the security concern can be dealt with -- 
> the calling 
> > program can do its own conversion to string beforehand if it is 
> > concerned
> > -- so would prefer to maintain the flexibility.  Geir has 
> proposed an
> > alternative of supporting both method signatures.  Comments?
> >
> 
> +0,  I am fine with it staying Object, and I am fine with there being 
> +two
> different methods for each.
> 
> I am -1, however on only having a String impl.
> 
> > 
> > Let's try to move towards resolution on these issues in the 
> next day 
> > or so.
> > 
> > Craig McClanahan
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Scott Sanders - sanders@apache.org
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message