commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard Sitze" <>
Subject Re: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:07:25 GMT
Well... yes... I was "rearranging the deck chairs".    I move all
implementation out of the one package, and into another (btw, LogFactory is
an abstract class with some code specified, it's not an interfact).

How is that significantly different than what you proposed, other than your
proposal may preserve backwards compatibility.... which is goodness.

Also, I really dislike "LogUser" in that context...   what's wrong with
"LogEnabled"  as per Avalon (I know we are, again, circling back over old
ground :-), or "LogEnablable" :-).


Richard A. Sitze  
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development

                      "Geir Magnusson                                                    
                      Jr."                     To:      Jakarta Commons Developers List  
                      <geirm@optonline         <> 
                      .net>                    cc:                                    
                                               Subject: Re: [logging]  Need interface... 
                      04/05/2002 04:45                                                   
                      Please respond                                                     
                      to "Jakarta                                                        
                      Developers List"                                                   

On 4/4/02 5:15 PM, "Richard Sitze" <> wrote:

> OK then, let's see what happens:
> I PROPOSE that the classes in commons logging be rearranged as follows:
> no change:
>  org.apache.commons.logging.Log
> rename package, and add JavaDoc to explain or confuse as appropriate:
>  org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogFactory
>  org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogSource  (deprecate?)
>  org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogFactoryImpl
>  org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogConfigurationException
>  org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.Log4jFactoryImpl

Isn't this just rearranging the deck chairs?  The problem, for me anyway,
still exists...

All I want is a base 'commons component' with two interfaces (ok maybe more
than two - three)


Where Log and LogFactory are just like the o.a.c.l interfaces, and  LogUser
has a single method

   setLogFactory( LogFactory );

That's it.

Then, if this gives me what I think it does, and if people grok what I was
trying to do, I would then propose

  o.a.c.l.Log extends o.a.c.genericlog.Log

  o.a.c.l.LogFactory extends o.a.c.genericllog.LogFactory

So thus, nothing changes for anyone or anything using o.a.c.l, but then
there would exist :

1) : a generic, lightweight contract for logging with the marker
interface I think would be useful.

2) o.a.c.l :  multi-impl implementation of

Geir Magnusson Jr.                           
System and Software Consulting
The question is : What is a Mahnamahna?

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

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

View raw message