commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Siegfried Goeschl <siegfried.goes...@it20one.at>
Subject Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:22:26 GMT
Hi folks,

> Why is it harder to maintain?

Because we have to target multiple JDK version starting from 1.3 and you have to write tests
for each logging integration you provide out of the box


> Why?

Because using commons-logging is not undisputed and log4j/jdk logging would reduce the number
of dependencies for a user


> Can you explain the recipe please?

public class Log4jOutputStream extends BaseLogOutputStream {

    private static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(Log4jOutputStream.class);

    public Log4jOutputStream(final int level) {
        super(level);
    }

    protected void processLine(final String line, final int level) {
        log.debug(line);
    }
}


Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

sebb wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, Siegfried Goeschl <siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
>   
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> an interesting question for the newly founded commons-exec community -
>> the original code from commons-exec comes with a helper class to pump
>> stdout/stderr of the created process into the Commons Logging library
>> thereby introducing a non-optional dependency.
>>
>> I changed the code to use stdout/stderr per default to make
>> commons-logging an optional dependency but the question remains - should
>> we support logging libraries within commons-exec?
>>
>> +) doing so makes the library easier to use but harder to maintain
>>     
>
> Why is it harder to maintain?
>
>   
>> +) if we support commons-logging we might also need JDK logger, log4j
>> and avalon-logger
>>     
>
> Why?
>
>   
>> +) we could completely remove a dependency
>> +) I refactored the code (locally on my box) so that adding a new
>> logging library is a peace of cake (overwrite one method from a base class)
>>     
>
> s/peace/piece/
>
> Can you explain the recipe please?
>
>   
>> So I lean towards removing the commons-logging related code completely
>> and provide documentation how to attach the logging library of your choice
>>     
>
> Depending on the recipe, that may be the way.
>
>   
>> Any comments
>>
>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>     
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
>   

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


Mime
View raw message