commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] What's needed for a release
Date Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:09:30 GMT
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 21:38 +0100, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> > 
> > robert burrell donkin wrote on Saturday, November 12, 2005 2:00 PM:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> >>>* Consider Joerg Schaible/Joerg Hohwiller's "getChildLogger"
> >>>proposal. I'm tempted not to include this, though. Getting a release
> >>>out is probably the highest priority.
> >>
> >>IMHO i need to be certain that everything's exactly right
> >>before i'm willing to commit it. i was trying to work through
> >>the issues and making sure i understood them but this went a
> >>bit quiet.
> >>
> >>either of the two Joerg's around to advocate it's inclusion?
> > 
> > 
> > My original proposal was to add getName to the Log interface, but I used it to create
a "getChildLogger" functionality. Joerg Howiller added a new LogFactory interface extending
Log to ensure backward compatibility, where this new functionality and other things have been
added.
> > 
> > To use the new functionality I have to cast every Log instance, but since I might
also have to deal with an implementation of another party, I cannot rely on it. So for my
personal use case, this solution is also not appropriate, since in such a case I still have
no valid fallback. I understand now, that my naive first proposal would backward break compatibility
I would rather wait for a 2.0 version of JCL to add this. That version might break compatibility
anyway (and might therefore also need new package names).
> > 
> > - Jörg
> Hi there,
> am still a little busy on other projects and private stuff but I am still on it.

glad to hear that

> I am very keen on the issue (my proposal) but I definitivly agree that
> small steps (first a release without such new stuff and then take some time
> to think where we are definitvily going for the long run) makes sense.

+1

i'll pull something together about what's need for this release on the
wiki.

thanks for the (snipped) manifesto :) 

i think it's better that the discussion is left until the current code
is released (so i won't comment now)

- robert


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