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 16:27:47 GMT
On 1/30/02 11:07 AM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

Yep - sure - that's reasonable - but that's an issue above the logging
Façade, right? (Well, can be..)
 
> Turn the question around, as well.  What is the technical benefit in
> changing the argument to String?

I don¹t see it as 'either-or', but 'both'.  The advantage of Strings is that
the contract is clear.  Passing Object is a little suspect - I have no idea
what you want out of me when I do that. (me == inteface user...)

And for 'both', if you then offer a overload that takes Object, then I can
choose.
 
>> 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.
> 

It's not a personality thing.  My suspicion wasn't based on any judgment or
assessment of his *personality* but his *motivation*.  Hence, I used the
word 'motivation'.  Technical decisions are also driven by motivation..

(and so are political decisions, and business decisions, and...)

And I like Peter. Don't always agree, but like him.

Here's a non-smiley face for you :

:/


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
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