Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:42, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 06:10, giacomo wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to confess that I don't know how this works in all my components
>>>>that are based on AbstractLoggable and have the logger passed in from
>>>>ExcaliburCM.
>>>>
>>>Just looked at ExcaliburCM and it doesn't really support separate loggers
>>>per component. Berin what do you think of adding an extra attribute to
>>>component definition so that you can specify name of logger. Then later
>>>on instead of doing
>>>
>>I was thinking about that before. We need to add an attribute to the
>>component definitions (probably "logger"). Something like this to specify
>>it:
>>
>><component role="com.foo.Component"
>> class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
>> logger="foo"/>
>>
>>The attribute name is negotiable ;).
>>
>
> logger works for me.
>
>
>>Think this will help, combined with your changes for the Logger?
>>
>
> Which changes are you referring to? It should work without any changes.
The changes that test if the "logger" variable has a value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
