On 4/4/02 11:30 AM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we are circling around the same point. Maybe. > > I don't see the value of the interface w/o framework as-per your comments > below. You CANNOT use the interface for "totally generic code" without > forcing a framework into the code also... SOMETHING has to attach an > implementation to the logger, via pull (factory) or push (external > dependencies) model. So, you are going to be subscribing to one or the > other. And SOMETHING has to be there anyway to use the component/class/package/module that uses o.a.c.l, right? I just don't want to be told exactly what has to be there... > > On the other hand, we could do a bit of disassociation here: move the > factory and other elements of the "framework" into a separate package, and > introduce a new package for the push model: > > org.apache.commons.logging.pull > org.apache.commons.logging.push > > (and no, I wouldn't vote for these for final names :-) Nor would I. I would hope though that in o.a.c.l lives the basic interfaces... -- 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]>
