commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gas...@krankikom.de>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:35:01 GMT
> 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?

The API user gets the _clear_ message that if he wants a pretty rendering
of the object he might have to do it himself instead of relying in some
magic functionality of the underlying logger that might not exist.

The API user still has the choice of passing SomeObj.toString(). Not very
hard work to say "I don't care on how pretty it looks".
=:o)

(A smiley that is not loaded with personality issues just for a change.)


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:08 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>
>
>
>
> 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>


--
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