On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:56, Waldhoff, Rodney wrote: > > you may want to consider making the parameters > > Strings not objects. They were made strings so that > > you could render objects with Log4j. No other logging > > toolkit does this. Thus if this is allowed/used you are > > directly binding to Log4j anyway - why not use Log4j > > directly in that case? > > What's it hurt to leave Objects in there? String.valueOf(object) is easy > enough to do, and it supports the richer functionality provided by log4j. > Why go out of our way to restrict functionality that's otherwise trivial to > support?
Because it is not portable across different providers? -- Cheers, Pete ---------------------------------------------------------- Which is worse: Ignorance or Apathy? Who knows? Who cares? ---------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
