commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] To depend or not to depend?
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:24:39 GMT
From: "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 08:16 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
>
> > James Strachan wrote:
> >> Would it be acceptable
> >>> to add a getName() or something similar to the Log interface and the
> >>> implementations? That way, we can fully implement the avalon-framework
> >>> Logger contract on top of commons-logging.
> >> +1.
> >> Seems reasonable to me. I guess it won't break anyones code who just
use
> >> commons-logging to log. The only risk is people who implement Log,
> >
> > yep. It is a backwards-incompatible change there.
>
> losing backward compatibility seems to me like it might open up a whole
> can of worms. i worry that here in the commons we'd be left with major
> incompatible problems between components based on the version of
> commons-logging that they used.
>
> a lot of time and debate was spent on the Log interface. as far as the
> original idea is concerned, it's exactly right the way it is. once we
> start changing the original concept, when do we stop?
>
> rather than dive in and make changes to something which took literally
> months of debate to get right (ie the Log interface), i'd prefer it if we
> could look around for a solution which would preserve backwards
> compatibility for this critical interface.
>
> wouldn't it be better to either extend Log or create a Logger class which
> implements Log but which has the extra method(s) that leo needs?

I hear you - though this change would maintain backwards compatibility for
people who use Log, it would just break Log implementations. I wonder how
many people have developed custom Log implementations?

Maybe we could introduce a seperate interface, NamedLog which has a single
getName() method? Or just use introspection and add a getName() method to
the core Log implementations? Though both of these increase the size and/or
complexity of commons-logging, so I'd personally prefer just adding a new
method to Log; its a fairly minor change.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message