db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.gmd.de>
Subject Re: [vote] commons-logging
Date Mon, 31 May 2004 15:11:57 GMT
On Mon, 31 May 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:

> I don't follow all discussions last week, so be patience with me ;-)
> +1 for use commons-logging instead of OJB proprietary PoorMansLogger
> -1 for remove of OJB Logging wrapper (LoggerFactory/Logger) before 1.0
> I'm against removing the wrapper before 1.0 because,
> - user implementation classes maybe use these classes for logging
> - the LoggerClass is pluggable, thus user can easily plug (and I think 
> some do) in their own proprietary logging api (ok, this is possible with 
> commons-logging too)

Mhm, wouldn't that be a reason to migrate to commons-logging before the
1.0 ? Otherwise it would hang around for *much* longer (OJB 1.1 or later).

Changes to user implementations/direct usages would be minimal because
Logger and Log from commons-logging are nearly API compatible with the
exceptions of getName (not used within OJB), safeXXX (not really used
within OJB as Jakob said, and the log methods in the Logger impl should be
safe anyway), and isEnabledFor (used twice within OJB both with INFO as
the argument so can be replaced by isInfoEnabled).
And the user would have a logging implementation for commons-logging which
would be useful in other contexts as well.

My reason for advertising this change is that the logging is a major
blocker for making the configuration easier (it currently requires
OJB.properties to be loaded), and separating logging and configuration 
would be a bit like creating another commons-logging, but OJB-proprietary.


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

View raw message