So, if I understand you right, you just want the interface; the use given to it (i.e., the lifecycle) is left to you and your application? That makes sense, even if it leaves inversion of control in your hands -- inversion of inversion of control :)
Un saludo, Alex. > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: miércoles 3 de abril de 2002 19:21 > Para: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Asunto: Re: [logging] Need interface... > > > On 4/3/02 12:16 PM, "Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In order to implement a LogUser interface and have a > setLogger(Log) method > > called, don't you need a full lifecycle for the components? > > Not at all (well, maybe...). > > The point of view here is that implementing LogUser means you want a > configured log to use, and the lifecycle is up to the component and > framework it works in... > > > > > That is, to be sure setLogger(Log) will be called at a > certain point in all > > LogUsers, LogUsers must register somewhere. > > No - it's left up to the use - we just want a standard way of > doing it. > > > Then, the logging package will > > call setLogger(Log) for all components after it has read > the configuration. > > That, in turn, means the components should tell the logging > package to > > configure itself, or read the configuration from a given > location, or > > whatever. This resembles even more a full-fledged > framework, and does not > > seem proper for a simple logging package. > > No - we are coming at it from the POV that we want to write > little tools > that work with any app/framework/etc that knows about LogUser. The > component that implements the interface can make no demands - > it is just > saying "I can log using Log, so give me one if you have it..." > > > > > > Un saludo, > > > > Alex. > > > >> -----Mensaje original----- > >> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Enviado el: miércoles 3 de abril de 2002 17:55 > >> Para: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >> Asunto: Re: [logging] Need interface... > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> > >>> What we need is a marker interface that indicates a tool > >> wants a logger, and > >>> of course a method to give it the logger... I did a quick > >> scan of the > >>> public API, and there doesn't seem to be one. > >>> > >>> So what I propose is to add an interface 'LogUser' or > >> something like it (we > >>> can quibble about the name...) > >>> > >>> public interface LogUser > >>> { > >>> public void setCommonsLogger(Log log) > >>> } > >> > >> In other words, you also want a 'push' model for the logger. > >> Curently each > >> component is supposed to 'pull' the logger. > >> > >> Well, I can't say no. I prefer the current Log.getLog() > pattern, but > >> the whole point of commons is to be open and accept multiple points > >> of view, instead of forcing everyone to use a 'right' thing. > >> > >> +1 on the idea - but maybe we can discuss a bit the > details. LogUser > >> and setCommonLogger sounds a bit weird, and I'm not sure I > >> understand who > >> will call the method. > >> > >> In JMX terms, you would have a method setLogger( > >> o.a.commons.logger.Log ) > >> or setLoggerName( String ) and based on some config JMX > will set the > >> logger. The Log???? interface will be extended by the component > >> MBean interface ( if any ). Seems a valid use case, and a > >> good idea to > >> 'standardise' the pattern used to set the logger in a component. > >> > >> Maybe even a set logLevel() to tune the ammount of output the > >> component > >> generates - i.e. a second filter pattern. I wouldn't say no, > >> since the > >> pattern is in wide use in tomcat(3 at least, and other > >> projects as well ) > >> and quite usefull. > >> > >> > >>> As I personally believe that just being a commons committer > >> doesn't give me > >>> the 'spirit-of-the-law' right to commit to the logger, I'll > >> ask for some > >>> even vague hint of approval from the logger people before > >> moving forward. > >> > >> Good idea, given the amount of debate we had for each API change in > >> commons-logger. I would do the same. > >> > >> However feel free to commit anything in the impl :-). > >> > >> Costin > >> > >> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > System and Software Consulting > Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things... > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
