----- Original Message -----
From: "David BERNARD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Avalon Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: JDK1.4 logging vs. LogKit
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm newby in Avalon and C�, and I've got a suggestion (if stupid say
> it).
>
> Actually I do a evaluation for "services engine"for my client, and I've
> promote Avalon.
> The first set of services is for the migration of a old big java
> application. This application have some target in services management,
> log...
>
> In the first step, we design a from scratch system, and the choice for
> log is : "log is a service like anyother".
No quite.... the logging is a fundamental part that should be available
immediately, it means that a Hierarchy has to be instantiated in the
container.
>So why, it's not a nice/good
> idea to define a role Logger and use a LoggerSelector (use category
> string as key) to get the instance of Logger.
> In this case, there implementation for LogKit, Log4J... and the
> configuration of Log system is independent of each Component
> configuration (The default category a component can use is the ROLE
> constant).
> The problem is all Loggeable must be Composable to access
> LoggerSelector.
I already did that in the project I work and I can tell you it's not the
best approach. I think you can have only LogTarget-s as components
configured to use a certain Hierarchy ( we have two Hierarchies for logging
and auditing). In this way you can have a configured LogTargetComponent
like: FileTargetComponent, DatabaseTargetComponent, JMSQueueTargetComponent
..... and you would configure them to with a certain Hierarchy, Category and
Priority as common attributes.
Mircea
>
> In this case Configurator/and dynamic Reconfiguration can be develop and
> specialize like any Service.
>
> I will try this in my evaluation. If it's OK, then I could give my first
> version.
>
> PS: Sorry for my english.
>
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Leo Sutic wrote:
> >
> > > Peter, Berin,
> > >
> > > how will this work with individual log levels for each
> > > logger/category/channel?
> > >
> > > If one adds two properties: logger and loglevel, like this:
> > >
> > > <component role="com.foo.Component"
> > > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
> > > logger="foo"
> > > loglevel="DEBUG"/>
> > >
> > > Is there a problem when having multiple components using the same
logger?
> > >
> > > <component role="com.foo.Component"
> > > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent"
> > > logger="foo"
> > > loglevel="DEBUG"/>
> > >
> > > <component role="com.foo.Component2"
> > > class="com.foo.DefaultComponent2"
> > > logger="foo"
> > > loglevel="ERROR"/>
> >
> > I don't really like specifying the LOGLEVEL in the
> > component configuration. I think this is something that has to be
> > specified at the class instantiating the loggers. Do you see yourself
> > changing all loglevels in the config file when you deploy it for
> > production?
> >
> > Giacomo
> >
> > >
> > > If the two components share the same logger instance, I don't see how
this
> > > can work. Of course, the fact that I have no idea of how the contract
for
> > > getChildLogger is in respect to multiple children with the same
subcategory.
> > >
> > > /LS
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: den 8 augusti 2001 15:22
> > > > To: Avalon Development
> > > > Subject: Re: JDK1.4 logging vs. LogKit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> David "Dwayne" Bernard Freelance Developer (Java)
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> \|/ http://dwayne.java-fan.com
> --o0O @.@ O0o-------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
