+1 provided the interface method does not preclude using the regular method. The interface method is not appropriate for all circumstances.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >On 4/5/02 9:07 AM, "Richard Sitze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Well... yes... I was "rearranging the deck chairs". I move all >>implementation out of the one package, and into another (btw, LogFactory is >>an abstract class with some code specified, it's not an interfact). >> >>How is that significantly different than what you proposed, other than your >>proposal may preserve backwards compatibility.... which is goodness. >> > >What I propose is a separate package - so that you include the o.a.c.gl jar >when you just want the interfaces, and both (or just o.a.c.l) when you want >the actual impl. > >Remember, I am coming from the POV that I already have logging (which could >be based on log4j, logkit, system.out.println...) and just want a generic >interface to it. > >>Also, I really dislike "LogUser" in that context... what's wrong with >>"LogEnabled" as per Avalon (I know we are, again, circling back over old >>ground :-), or "LogEnablable" :-). >> > >I don't care about the name. LogEnabled is fine, but I was keeping the >'LogUser' moniker just so people who saw the first post have a clue... For >the real impl, we'll change it. > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
