Quoting Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:15, giacomo wrote:
> > Another think I need to know:
> >
> > A Logger is defined by its Category, Targets and Priority.
>
> I would say that a Logger is define by it's Hierarchy and it's category,
> much
> like a Class object is defined by it's ClassLoader and name.
Ok, I know you can have separate logging hierarchies which all starts with a
Category of "" (rootLogger) but how does this relate to the LogKit Configurator.
I think we haven't specified having different hierarchies, only categories,
right?
Do we have the need configuring different Hierarchies like
<hierarchies>
<hierarchy name="foo"/>
<hierarchy name="bar"/>
</hierarchies>
<targets>
<target .../>
</targets>
<categories>
<category name="..." ... hierarchy="foo"/>
</categories>
Giacomo
>
> > These three
> > things cannot be changed for a given Logger, right? Well, I know that
> > there are methods to change the Targets as well as the Priority for a
> given
> > Category but it makes no sense IIRC to have two Components which will
> have
> > the same Logger which differ in one of the aspects mentioned above
> > (Category, Target, Priority).
>
> yep. As soon as you change target or priority it changes target/priority
> for
> all components using that logger.
>
> > BTW: After browsing through the code for several month now (mainly
> > logkit and framework/excalibur) I have the feeling that specifying
> > everything possible as final (classes, member variables, method
> > arguments, local variables, and even catched exceptions) is good
> > programming practice, is it?
>
> Not sure - I have never seen any research on it. It is great when
> teaching
> students at introductory level because it encourages understanding. It
> can
> also be useful for some compilers/JITs as instead of recycling variables
> you
> create new variables (and make them final) which is easier for compilers
> to
> optimize. The other advantage is that it is *sometimes* easier to read
> as you
> don't have to search through code to verify that value hasn't changed.
>
> So I guess I think it is better but I don't know of any real proof ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof." |
> | - John Kenneth Galbraith |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
