commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: [logging] To depend or not to depend?
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:21:08 GMT
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, James Strachan wrote:
> > Maybe we could introduce a seperate interface, NamedLog which has a
> > getName() method? Or just use introspection and add a getName() method
> > the core Log implementations? Though both of these increase the size
> > complexity of commons-logging, so I'd personally prefer just adding a
> > method to Log; its a fairly minor change.
> >
> NamedLog wouldn't help the stated Avalon use case, because there would
> still be existing libraries that don't use it.  Convincing the world to
> change would not be a likely scenario.

But the default Log implementations in commons-logging could implement
NamedLog and then Avalon could check for it and if not just log a warning &
use a default value?

Maybe using introspection on the Log implementation might be easier to add
incrementally to Log implementations without breaking backwards

> Adding a new method might be OK in a 2.x release (although I don't feel a
> particular compulsion towards it), but would be against the spirit of
> Commons support for backwards compatibility in a 1.x releaese; so I'd
> definitely be -1 there.

So you might not be -1 if if it were a 2.x release change?


Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

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

View raw message