On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > If all you're talkng about is new interfaces/classes to support the > "push" method and this won't affect the "pull" method then why wouldn't > you just put them in the existing package? eh? How does they're > existance hurt me if I chose not to use them?
Again, if anyone feels he's 'hurt' and sends a valid -1 we have to respect it ( and work around it :-). I don't think the argument 'it will confuse people into believing it is mandatory to implement it' is very good, but that's how apache works. The initial proposal ( with setLogger) for example 'hurt' few people ( including me ) because it was not clear how it worked and what it did. The current one - allowing to set a log factory in a component is better. I think adding a setLogFactory() in the LogFactory to allow per/application setting ( with a guard, etc ) would also be good and easier to use than having a setLogFactory in each component - but if someone has a use case for that, it doesn't hurt me. Costin > > -Andy > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote: > > > >>this seems contradictory to me. On one hand you say "no need for another > >>package" and on the other "create a package.... would be useful". > >> > > > >No need for another package with Log interface and pull. > >Usefull for another package ( if he can't convince those who voted -1 to > >switch ) with the push interface and maybe management interfaces. > > > >Costin > > > >>This seems contradictory again. "put LogUser in a separate pacakge" and > >>"+1 on putting LogUser in o.a.c.l". Am I missing something? > >> > > > >He has my +1 for o.a.c.l, but I've seen few -1s around. If he can't > >get those changed, a separate package for LogUser is the only solution. > > > > > >>Oh, and "we are all saying - put LogUser in a separate package"? I'm not. > >>If it goes in, I think it should go in the o.a.c.l package. > >> > > > >I agree - if the -1 are changed. > > > >If not - a separate package ( i.e. in sandbox - if he can't get it > >accepted in o.a.c.l ) is the only solution ( and nobody can stop that ). > > > >Costin > > > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
