On 4/3/02 4:17 PM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And in that framework, can they have their components use the generic
>> commons interface for logging?
>
> No. The biggest difference (and it's important to the Avalon community) is
> that logged messages are "Object" in commons, and "String" in LogKit. That
> kind of trashes the idea of sharing a common interface. However, the CODE
> you write can be "independent" of this.
Sorry - why do I care if a hypothetical commons generic interface doesn't
jive with the Avalon philosophy?
I mean, this conversation gives me an idea - a LoggingLogging project in
commons that has
1) the same Log interface as o.a.c.l
2) the LogUser interface (with michaels change to setFactory())
3) an empty Factory impl
And then optional Factory Impls that use the o.a.c.l package to provide real
impl using log4j or logkit.
No philosophy.
No implied framework.
Push, pull, slide, jigger, throw, catch, ....
Just a common interface that people can use for logging...
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
