commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:55:40 GMT
On 1/29/02 3:11 PM, "robert burrell donkin" <robertdonkin@mac.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 07:39 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>> Scott Sanders wrote:
>> 
>>> Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although the
>>> abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do believe that Avalon
>>> should be attributed in some way, because it ended up being so close.
>>> What can we do to make this better?  The biggest difference that I see
>>> is that commons-logging is trying to be super small.  I want to talk
>>> this out before I give my +1 on the release.  I am willing to try and
>>> make this better.
>>> I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from.
>> 
>> 
>> I want it documented in the javadocs and/or other documentation where the
>> design
>> for this originated, and author attributes for the original authors of the
>> Logger abstraction.
>> 
>> The fact that this is outside of Avalon is beside the point.  However,
>> you should
>> attribute the original source that influenced its design.
> 
> (perhaps paulo realizes now why i refused to look at his logging material
> from avalon.)
> 
> hi berin
> 
> from my point of view, avalon didn't influence the design any more than
> log4j. please search the list archives if you don't believe me. (i've
> taken a *lot* of flak about being unwilling to learning from avalon.)
> 
> i've been waiting since the commons was started for a solution to our
> logging problem. every particular logging system that was proposed was
> vetoed (including avalon). commons-logging is unfortunately the only
> choice remaining on the table. it's either this or not having a solution
> at all,
> 
> i personally couldn't care less about who gets attributed with what. if
> that's all that's bothering you, please submit a patch.
> 
> on the other hand, if you think that we should be using
> whatever-bit-of-code-in-avalon then that's a different issue. please
> submit a alternative proposal so that we can vote on it.
> 
> all i want is to have a solution to the logging problem.

Just to throw another log on the fire...

We did too in Velocity-land, and built the following, a while ago :

1) Simple interface through which Velocity would happily log into any
supplied class/object that supported that interface.

2) 'Autodetection' - when the user didn't specify the logsystem they
preferred, we would look for log4j or logkit in the classpath, and use
whatever we found.  That means that you can just put the log4j.jar or
logkit.jar into the classpath, and velocity will automatically log to a file
using that system.

My point?  I don't know - just noting that there are others in jakarta-land
with similar problems and solutions (like Paulo...)


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                       geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
You're going to end up getting pissed at your software
anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source.



--
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