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 18:13:12 GMT
On Mon, 31 May 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:

> LoggerFactory and Logger are common OJB api, so I don't think we should 
> change them before 1.0 because if user use it they have to change their 
> source code before update to next OJB release.
> 
> I wonder that I have to cite the "no api changes on RC" argument ;-)

Yeah, I thought that too :-)
 
> hmm, I think a compromise can be to remove the dependency to 
> OJB.properties but support of OJB LoggerFactory/Logger (thin wrapper for 
> comons logging).
> Then on update to new release all user implementation classes will still 
> work, but if the user use it's own LoggerClass implementation he has to 
> reimplement it with commons-logging.

It won't be that easy because user implementations probably rely on the
configure mechanism of OJB. Separating logging from the OJB configuration
will mean API change because a custom logger implementation possibly
needs the configure method which has a Configuration object as its
argument.
So it is at least required to change the signature of this method to
accept a Properties object instead of a Configuration object. Then these
properties could be read from a common OJB logging properties file, or
if not found from OJB.properties (to be backwards compatible, but then
with a deprecation warning) without the need to initialize OJB
(yet). Other impls don't need the configure method anyway
(commons-loggings, log4j have their own properties files).

Tom


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


Mime
View raw message