On 1/29/02 3:56 PM, "Waldhoff, Rodney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? Is there other 'richer' functionality in other logging systems that you may want to support also? I see peters point, although I am suspicious of his motivation :) (And I see your point too...) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
