commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: [logging] ECL: Log interface vs. abstract class
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:54:13 GMT

Whether you choose Log to be an interface or an abstract class does
not really matter. The point I am trying to convey is that jcl will
not be able to abstract more than one logging API. Although desirable,
abstraction is not technically feasible.

At 12:59 AM 12/20/2004, Matt Sgarlata wrote:

>I think this added functionality that is coming in Log4J demonstrates 
>another reason to leave Log as an interface rather than converting it to 
>an abstract class.  Assuming we make LocalizedLog an interface that 
>extends Log, when Log4J introduces support for their new "domain" logging 
>(if you will), JCL can just introduce a DomainLog interface that extends 
>Log and has nothing to do with LocalizedLog.  A logging implementation may 
>or may not support internationalization, and may or may not support this 
>new "domain" concept.  In this way, we can have Log implementations 
>describe which features they support by implementing certain interfaces 
>and not others.

Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual:

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

View raw message