commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Stansberry <bes_commons_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [logging] detecting logging libs
Date Tue, 24 May 2005 06:09:24 GMT

--- robert burrell donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 11:24 +1200, Simon Kitching
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 21:01 +0100, robert burrell
> donkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 10:43 +0000,
> skitching@apache.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > >      protected boolean
> isJdk13LumberjackAvailable() {
> > > >  
> > > > +        // note: the algorithm here is
> different from isLog4JAvailable.
> > > > +        // I think isLog4JAvailable is
> correct....see bugzilla#31597
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > could do with going through all the
> isAvailable's and checking whether
> > > their algorithms are correct. however, i suspect
> that brian's approach
> > > will be needed to deal correctly with some
> circumstances. if no one
> > > feels like volunteering should probably record
> this in bugzilla so we
> > > don't lose track...
> > 
> > If by "brian's approach" you mean creating an
> instance of the logger
> > class in order to test whether that logging lib is
> *really* available, I
> > agree.
> 
> yes 
> 
> (hopefully brian will jump in here and correct any
> misunderstandings) 
> 

+1

> > Not only is it more reliable, but it's a cleaner
> solution; currently the
> > LogFactoryImpl class is making *assumptions* about
> what classes the
> > various logging adapters depend on. That
> information should be only in
> > the logging adapter class.
> 
> +1
> 
> in addition, the specification allows variation as
> to the timing of
> error reporting. i believe that creating an
> instances would give more
> consistency across JVMs.
> 
> > The only problem with creating an instance of the
> logger is that we
> > would have to pass a category string to the logger
> constructor, and
> > therefore must build an assumption into
> LogFactoryImpl about what
> > category names are valid for the underlying
> logger. Can we assume that
> > an empty string is a valid category for all logger
> libraries? Can we
> > assume that "apache" or
> "org.apache.commons.logging" are valid category
> > strings? Perhaps some loggers only accept valid
> URLs as
> > categories...yes, I'm playing devil's advocate a
> bit here. I guess we
> > could always say that the writer of the logging
> adapter is required to
> > return a valid logger instance for category "",
> even if that is not
> > normally a category that is valid to the
> underlying library.
> 
> IIRC brian's patch refactored the code so that the
> test also constructed
> the correct logger instance (or something like
> that). if you don't beat
> me to it, i'll commit the patch onto one of the
> branches so that
> everyone can easily take a look at the approach. 
> 
> (again hopefully brian will jump in here if i've
> made any mistakes)
> 

Looks good.

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


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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