commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andy McBride" <>
Subject RE: [logging] DON_QUIXOTE branch
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:47:43 GMT
This is good to see, anything which leads towards a more predictable
behaviour for CL is great.  

I would personally prefer the static binding approach over byte code
manipulation as a more deterministic approach.  

I'm curious at to your choice of 'Don Quixote' as a branch name, please,
please put me out of my misery and explain what the reference means! :-)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert burrell donkin []
> Sent: 31 March 2005 21:57
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: [logging] DON_QUIXOTE branch
> i've committed some code into a branch called DON_QUIXOTE. it's
> illustrative code showing how it's possible to lift off a simple
> superclass from LogFactory. i've believe for some time that this is the
> most important step forward. moving to a simplified API would allow
> static binding (whether compile time ala UGLI or byte code manipulation)
> to be offered in addition to (improved) dynamic binding.
> one aspect that has been holding me back is the increased complexity
> that this choice gives. however, i'm now convinced that it really isn't
> any use running away from the complexity: we need to cover advanced use
> cases with better documentation as well as giving some intermediary
> heuristic recipes (to stop JCL blowing up so much).
> this kind of design is (i think) one way forward for JCL. opinions
> welcomed (but please forgive the implementation: it's only
> illustrative).
> - robert
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message