commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From joerg <>
Subject Re: [logging] proposal
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:02:59 GMT
Hash: SHA1

Simon Kitching wrote:
> [AARGH - I hate top-posting!]
mmh, whatever you may mean with that (I am not a native englishman)...
> I'm not opposed to this proposal. Commons-logging already creates a
> proxy Log object for each underlying real logger object, so at the worst
> the name can be remembered at the Log object level as far as I can see.
> In other words, this functionality should be possible to implement
> whatever the underlying logging library. 
> And I'm generally convinced by the emails to this thread that all
> reasonable logging libraries provide a way for logging objects to return
> their name anyway.
> I don't personally have any need for this feature, but it seems that
> people with reasonable credentials do.
> So overall I'm in favour of some kind of implementation of this feature.
> Commons-logging needs to be *very* careful about adding features to its
> API but this seems to me like one that passes the necessary tests.
> If you were to create a bugzilla entry with an implementation of this
> feature and supporting unit tests [and assuming no-one else votes
> against it] I will review and commit it sometime in the next few weeks.
> Note, however, that commons-logging isn't making much progress at the
> moment, and several issues standing in the way of a new release. So
> there's no guarantee of when the next release might actually be pushed
> out.
Great! This sounds like an option.
I wouldn't mind making the bugzilla entry and writing junit tests.
Maybe the two Joergs (and whoever likes this proposal) may get together
doing this.

Just let me know if I get it right:
We add a new interface called Logger that extends Log.
That is going to have two additional methods
"String getName()"
"Logger getChildLogger(String)"
Is that right?
You would also like me to send patches for the exisitng implementations
so they implement Logger instead of Log?
Further I leave things like LogFactory untouched. So whoever wants to
have these two additional methods may cast from Log to Logger if he uses
the LogFactory.
Is that the right way to keep things easy and have no trouble with
> Regards,
> Simon
> PS: Two Joerg Schaibles? How confusing!
My name is Jörg Hohwiller.

Thanks a lot so far!

Best regards
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


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

View raw message