Re: [logging] To depend or not to depend?

[robert burrell donkin]

On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 08:16 PM, Leo Simons wrote:

James Strachan wrote:

Would it be acceptable

to add a getName() or something similar to the Log interface and the
implementations? That way, we can fully implement the avalon-framework
Logger contract on top of commons-logging.

+1.
Seems reasonable to me. I guess it won't break anyones code who just use
commons-logging to log. The only risk is people who implement Log,

yep. It is a backwards-incompatible change there.

losing backward compatibility seems to me like it might open up a whole can of worms. i worry that here in the commons we'd be left with major incompatible problems between components based on the version of commons-logging that they used.

a lot of time and debate was spent on the Log interface. as far as the original idea is concerned, it's exactly right the way it is. once we start changing the original concept, when do we stop?

rather than dive in and make changes to something which took literally months of debate to get right (ie the Log interface), i'd prefer it if we could look around for a solution which would preserve backwards compatibility for this critical interface.

wouldn't it be better to either extend Log or create a Logger class which implements Log but which has the extra method(s) that leo needs?

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]