commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] work needed for 1.0.4 [WAS Re: [logging] Are we ready for 1.0.4?]
Date Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:13:55 GMT
On 28 Feb 2004, at 19:37, Dennis Lundberg wrote:

> Here is a status for bugs regarding logging:
> #10818 [logging] Add method enter() and exit() methods to public Log 

this means breaking the Log interface. there is some utility in this 
proposal but i think that log is so widely used that backwards 
compatibility is crucial. i'd probably support rejecting this one.

> #21114 [logging] Create Log factory method getLog()


> - These involve changing the public API, so it's not something we can 
> do in a point release. Should these be marked as LATER in bugzilla?

these involve breaking backward compatibility and would require a full 
version change. we could probably mark them LATER and add for 
consideration in commons-logging 2. comments anyone?

> #25156 [logging] Enhance error message for 
> "org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JLogger does not implement Log"
> - This seems to me to be similar to #26598

i'd like to put a fix in for this but i think a little bit of 
discussion is required. i'll probably start a separate thread.

> #25940 [logging] adds extra - characters
> - This one's mine. There is a patch available for this one that is 
> pretty starightforward. The format of the log message needed some 
> work.


> #26598 [logging] org.apache.commons.logging.impl.LogFactoryImpl does 
> not provide enough information on an InvocationTargetException in the 
> newInstance() method.
> - This is something that has to be decided on. It involves catching an 
> extra Exception to provide a better error-message. Code that shows how 
> to do it is available in the bugreport.

see 25156 above

> #27135 [logging] SimpleLog log method should defer writing for better 
> reuse!
> - This is something for the architects to decide. The key question 
> here is whether subclassing SimpleLog should be allowed.

i'm inclined to discourage subclassing of SimpleLog but i don't feel 
very strongly on this issue (i can't see there being much harm). anyone 
else have any comments?

> Other things that needs to be done:
> * I guess someone has to update all the files to the new licence.


> * I proofread the mavenized user guide earlier from a syntactic 
> perspective. Someone should read it form the semantic perspective.

i'll get started on proofreading the user guide now.

- robert

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

View raw message