Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:46, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > I updated the Loggable proposal. This provides a smooth upgrade to the
> > new Logger interface instead of the LogKit Logger implementation.
>
> By smooth you mean non backwards compayible and will break your existings
> systems ? ;)
>
> I am fairly anti such a move. I would much much much prefer something like
> the following. This is binary compatible and will not force me to go through
> and change oodles of stuff.
Ok. I will make this change either today or tomorrow.
>
> interface LogAware
> {
> void enableLogging( Logger );
> }
>
> class abstract AbstractLogAware implements LogAware {}
>
> I really don't think we should be breaking binary compatability in such a
> fundamental interface in a supposedly stable library.
>
> > The AbstractLogger will perform the wrapping for you.
> >
> > Let me know what you all think, as I want to get this in ASAP!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> | Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it |
> | to a lazy person -- they will find an easier |
> | way to do it. |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
"Those who would trade liberty for
temporary security deserve neither"
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
