On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> o.a.c.genericlog.Log > >> o.a.c.genericlog.LogUser > >> o.a.c.genericlog.LogFactory > > > > You already have 2 of them ( Log and LogFactory). > > In o.a.c.l with some implicit assumptions (which I am trying to dodge...)
It's quite explicit, and your proposal seem to hava a LogFactory too. BTW, are you going to also propose a o.a.c.genericxmlparser, o.a.c.genericjdbc, etc ? After all, there are few dozen APIs using the same pattern with common-logging, do you feel confused when using them too ? > > What about > > o.a.c.logmanager.LogUser - define the interface to be implemented by > > components who want to support setLog() > > o.a.c.logmanager.LogManager - define interface for setting the > > properties if a Log, like level, appenders - the minimal stuff that is > > common to all loggers. > > (maybe few others ). > > That would be cool - but setLog() sets the factory, so you can recover the > pull model as well w/o giving anything up. Fine with me. BTW, since static LogFactory.getFactory() uses per ClassLoader data ( so each application can use a different factory ), we should also add a static setFactory() method in LogFactory itself. This way you can change explicitely the default factory for the whole application with a single call ( instead of calling each compoent's setLog()). Again, I'm perfectly fine and +1 if you want to set the factory on each component, maybe you want to use multiple loggers in your app. > > I would be +0 on this ( I think the push and management APIs should be > > part of c-l itself, not a separate package ). > > I do to, but it seems to me that the underlying implementation assumptions > of o.a.c.l are somewhat at odds with the notion of implementation-free > generic interface... Can you give any arguments for that ( besides 'it seems' ) ? Is there anything in Log that is not implementation-free ? Is there any requirement to use Log with a named-based pull system or force ? ( or even to force it's use with LogFactory ). LogFactory is a helper for people who want a one-line init code for logging. It does some magic to guess what logger is in the classpath, and that's it. I wouldn't use anything more complex - if using commons-logging requires implementing an interface or creating setters, then I prefer to use println. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
