Understood. I am learning by responding to Robert's questions. I have actually looked at your code, Paulo. I am just responding in the ways that I have thought about it. Peter and Ceki do have the handle on logging, I agree.
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:07 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] > default log level] > > > That is what the wrappers I took from Avalon that I posted > AGES AGO do! > > You are relearning all the stuff from zero instead of looking > at tested code written by people with more experience on > logging (not me - Peter Donald). > > I once saw a minimal common interface for logging from Ceki > and basically it was very much as the one that Peter designed > too. This means that the logging guys agree at least on this > interface (and not much else (o;= ). > > It would be great to just learn from their experience, no? > > > Have fun, > Paulo Gaspar > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:55 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: RE: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default > > log level] > > > > > > As long as isInfoEnabled and isDebugEnabled is supportable, I think > > that getLevel and setLevel can be removed from the > interface and only > > exist on the SimpleLog. > > > > I think that configuration is outside of this wrapper, and this > > demarcates that very clearly. > > > > Scott > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:58 AM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: how should log levels work? [Was Re: > [Logging] default > > > log level] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 06:45 PM, Scott Sanders wrote: > > > > > > > Does this also remove the isInfoEnabled and isDebugEnabled? > > > > > > LogKit has these so we do have delegated implementations of these > > > methods for all currently supported log system. > > > > > > the more i think about it, the more it seems to me that > if we want a > > > log level property then it should be implemented internally in > > > commons-logging. > > > > > > - robert > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For > > > additional commands, > > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To > unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
