Also keep in mind that AspectJ is not the only alternative...
Regards,
Paulo Gaspar
Richard Sitze wrote:
Good points. Please consider:
a. There are logging implementations today, I believe, that can accept
this information.
b. Consider AspectJ as an enabler of such methods, as opposed to an
alternative.
c. I'm not fluent in AspectJ terminology, so forgive any mistakes... but
I see this as an opportunity for someone to submit AspectJ rule(s) that
support this type of logging for both commons logging 1.0.x and for the
new proposal. No reason AspectJ can't make use of these methods on the
Log interface. Doing so would keep the logging consistent with whatever
we map commons-logging to.
e. In the absence of such rules, and for those who do not yet feel that
AspectJ is "usable" in their production environments [and these DO exist],
it would be better if the code were instrumented using more traditional
approaches.
<ras>
Paulo Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/10/2004 01:03:47 PM:
I agree. Aspect oriented tools obsolete the need for this kind of
logging method.
Paulo Gaspar
David Graham wrote:
--- simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
I would personally never use the enter/exit methods for those reasons.
If
I wanted that kind of detail, I would use AspectJ.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze
IBM WebSphere WebServices Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
