Berin Loritsch wrote:
> I find the logger package to be pretty decent. However, there are a few
> things
> to consider:
>
> 1) Instead of having many different logging abstractions, what about
> using
> Commons Logging (ducks and hides)?
+1
One thing is the logger, one thing is giving the logger to the user.
We would still have a IoC method to give the logger to the Component,
while giving in fact a commons-logging thing; then put logkit as an
implementation of commons logging.
On the commons list, Geir has shown great interest in having an
alternative method of getting a logger as Avalon does; if we use
commons-logging directly, he would have a solution easy at hand.
I'm sure that we should concentrate more on interfaces and facades and
leave implementation to others.
So I'm (sayind it again) really +1 for using commons-logging as a Logger.
> 2) If we maintain our own, what about a "TRACE" logging level. It is
> useful
> debugging information that is not necessary for all debugging
> excercises.
> Some bugs are only found by tracing through, so a message when
> entering
> a method or exiting a method can be helpful. Esp. if your Java
> debugger
> is effectively broken (happens more often than I care to mention).
>
-0 No need here, but anyway if we use commons loogging... ;-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
