I haven't used this feature - if anyone can provide a short description and a proposal for API it'll probably have my +1.
Regarding no-op - it may be better to try to provide a 'default' or baseline implementation, if possible ( even if the behavior will be inefficient ). At least IMO, commons-logging should provide a common API but also try to harmonize the behavior. Costin Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 11:10 10.10.2002 -0400, Steve Downey wrote: >>It looks like the concept is available in both LogKit and Log4J, although >>in slightly differenct forms. I don't know if the forms are compatible. >> >>It's not available in JDK 1.4 logging. >> >>So, the question is two-fold. Can the differences between LogKit and Log4J >>be harmonized, and is this useful if it might be a no-op? > > Yes on both accounts. Yes they should be compatible, and yes a no-op under > JDK 1.4 is better than having nothing under log4j or logkit. > > >>On Wednesday 09 October 2002 09:02 pm, Sean C. Sullivan wrote: >> > I spotted this message on the jboss-developer mailing list. >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Jason Dillon [mailto:jason@pl...] >> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:24 PM >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Design: Plans to decouple JBoss from log4j >> > > >> > > >> > > It is too bad commons logging does not provide abstractions >> > > for a ContextStack or ContextMap similar to Log4j's NDC and >> > > MDC. These are valuable constructs. >> > > >> > > Do you know anyone on the commons logging team? >> > > >> > > --jason > > -- > Ceki > > TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be > conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
