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: Problems with commons-logging
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:12:41 GMT
Answer inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Vernum [mailto:Tim.Vernum@macquarie.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:51 AM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Problems with commons-logging
> 
> 
> > ...
> >
> > Otherwise we'll still have to code against Log4j APIs ( to set the
> > config file for example ) - and what's the point of using 
> > commons logging
> > if we already require and hardcode log4j ?
> 
> Surely the author of the app can be expected to know which logging
> toolkit he/she is using?

Not always.

Example: with such generic configuration mechanism it would be 
easier to have a pluggable logger in Tomcat.

It would also be useful for the typical use of Velocity... but
Velocity already implements something like that.


> Commons-logging is to prevent the components from dictating a 
> specific logging implementation to their users.
> 
> It is (AFAICT) intended that commons-logging would only be used
> by individual components, and the users of those components
> would use their preferred logging api directly.
> 
> commons-logging exists *only* to provide an API to commons
> components that wish to log without requiring a specific
> logging implementation.
> 
> Configuration is not done by a components, therefore it is
> outside the scope of the common-logging package.

I still do not get WHY you really need to impose such 
limitations.

For me it makes more sense NOT to implement i18n support.

Have fun,
Paulo

--
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