commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: [logging] Need interface...
Date Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:56:03 GMT
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Richard Sitze wrote:

> In this case Geir's proposal requires (somewhere, and I admit that we don't
> care where) a supporting framework to be useful.  It may be that the Avalon

And I'm saying that having setters _does not_ require any framework to be 

In Axis you have Handler.setOption() - and nothing says I can't use 
setOption to pass a different Logger instance to my handlers. In tomcat 
all properties that are user-setable have setters, and now MBeans 
describing them. 

True, you can conside Axis and tomcat and ant ( and any user application 
that has some configurability ) as 'frameworks'.

Again, having a setter doesn't mean you can't use Logger.getLogger() - 
only that you can also change the logger at runtime. 

> If the requirement stands after the group conversation, great.  If not, say
> bye-bye until such time as we have a clear picture for the greater need.
> In this case, my vote would be -1 to changing commons-logging (Am I a
> voting member under the new by-laws or not?  I'm a committer in Axis, and
> I've submitted changes to commons logging) for the reasons above.

I think your -1 is as valid as any other logging commiter. However I'm not
sure I agree with your argument - if you don't have a need it doesn't mean
other people shouldn't solve their itches. 

I suppose Geir had an itch - and I believe it is a valid need. 

It's about runtime configuration, about management or the component.

I do agree the implementation is not good - there are important issues 
that are not resolved, so I'll change my vote to -0.

> Note also that if we introduce the "push" model, and we really desire to
> remain consistent within the Jakarta community, then sooner or later we
> will want to have that "push" model functional under the Avalon component
> framework.... do we REALLY want to go there???  I'll repeat that they

Ok, what does Avalon has to do with this discussion and why do mention 
it ??? Almost all Jakarta projects ( Ant, tomcat ) are using 'push' 
for configuration. 

If there's a 'framework' we should be concerned - that's JMX. But it 
doesn't require us to directly support it, modeler and dynamic mbeans
can wrap any component - as long as it provides some runtime 
configurability, i.e. normal JavaBeans setters.


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

View raw message