logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <aj...@trysybase.com>
Subject Re: Starting work on UGLI
Date Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:38:07 GMT
Resend, since I might now be subscribed.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam R. B. Jack" <ajack@trysybase.com>
To: <general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Starting work on UGLI

> >  > 2) I know C-L has a hard life, it is trying to sit on top of so much,
> >  > but I find it's need/attempt to call/configure logging packages a
> >  > problem. I don't know if I am expressing some form of IOC thought
> >  > here, but when working on Depot, even C-L falls down. We (as a
> >  > library) wanted to plug in to Ant, and we didn't want to force the
> >  > to Ant bridge. Basically, we wrote our own
> >  > (yet another) logging that was simply a listener pattern, and plugged
> in an
> >  > Ant logger listener, or a commons logging listener, as appropriate.
> Works
> >  > nicely, but I don't want to write that code. I'd like UGLI as a
> >  > abstraction that all containers can agree upon (Ant as a container,
> >  > application as a container) and have the environment provide it.
> >
> > When no action is taken by the user to set up a logging context, UGLI
> > will default to NullLogger. Thus, if you want logging the user has to
> > take explicit steps. Otherwise, UGLI will just be silent and will not
> > interfere or hamper your application. Would that approach have worked
> > for you?
> I think one needs to consider multiple use cases, but the one I was coming
> from was as some library code. As library code, I just want to fit inside
> many "containers" as possible, and fit into the logging infrastructure
> have established. As it stands Ant's and C-L do not play nicely together
> (even with that plug-in attempt). [Sadly dependencies of mine used C-L, so
> their output don't come out when the user types "ant -debug" or
> "ant -verbose".]
> Basically, I'd like my code to say log.[debug|info|error|warning|fatal]
> nothing more, ever. If the end user/container turns on logging, it comes
> out -- into it's output, in it's form.
> I hate to admit it, but I suspect I using the basic JDK logging interface
> likely all I really ought use, since I don't need/wish to support old
> I know the issue becomes which Logger object does one call those methods
> but (as a user) I'd really rather not care too much. I know there are pros
> and cons to configurations/filtering approaches, but I'd just like simple.
> I'll pass my name (or my package, or classname) if the logging subsystem
> would like, but I'd like not to care about strategies.
> Hmm, I guess I do just want a logging 'aspect' don't I? You thought about
> working on that?
> regards,
> Adam

View raw message