commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:04:06 GMT
On 4/5/02 9:47 AM, "" <> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> All I want is a base 'commons component' with two interfaces (ok maybe more
>> than two - three)
>>   o.a.c.genericlog.Log
>>   o.a.c.genericlog.LogUser
>>   o.a.c.genericlog.LogFactory
> You already have 2 of them ( Log and LogFactory).

In o.a.c.l with some implicit assumptions (which I am trying to dodge...)

> The question about
> LogUser is use case - most people don't think this is a common-enough use
> - pushing or replacing the logger in a component, when it's so easy to
> get it and the configuration is done 'behind the scene'

Uh huh. :)

Maybe it's not a "commons enough" use case, but the avalon people certainly
are in love with it...

> What about 
> o.a.c.logmanager.LogUser - define the interface to be implemented by
> components who want to support setLog()
> o.a.c.logmanager.LogManager - define interface for setting the
> properties if a Log, like level, appenders - the minimal stuff that is
> common to all loggers.
> (maybe few others ).

That would be cool - but setLog() sets the factory, so you can recover the
pull model as well w/o giving anything up.
> I would be +0 on this ( I think the push and management APIs should be
> part of c-l itself, not a separate package ).

I do to, but it seems to me that the underlying implementation assumptions
of o.a.c.l are somewhat at odds with the notion of implementation-free
generic interface...

So that's why I thought a sep package was the way to go - light,
and totally compatible with o.a.c.l

Geir Magnusson Jr.                           
System and Software Consulting
POC lives!

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message