commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sgarlata <>
Subject Re: [logging] ECL: Log interface vs. abstract class
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:18:35 GMT
I disagree; different logging APIs can be supported with the addition of 
new interfaces.  Using this strategy, the set of interfaces that a given 
Log implementation implements define the set of features which that 
logging implementation supports.

Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> 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.

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

View raw message