Simon Kitching wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > It disturbs me that what seems to me to be a reasonable and small set of
> > requirements --- along with what appears to have been considerable
> > forethought based upon real world issues, and experiences supporting
many
> > developers --- appears to be discounted a bit too out of hand. I hope
my
> > perception is wrong.
> The question is whether the implementation of those requirements is a
> good fit for commons-logging or not. Commons-logging is used in many
> environments that the Websphere team may *not* be interested in.
Agreed. And I have absolutely no issue with any of the constructive debate
that has occured. But I also saw some comments that came across to me as
dismissive, and I don't want to discourage people from trying to innovate
here.
> I will dispute localisation of log messages if this:
My thought is to have this new layer use a factory pattern to manufacture
the logging string from the parameters. That would introduce capability and
flexibility without mandating any particular mechanism or overhead, and
would remove the need to impose an i18n requirement on the underlying
logging implementation.
> I've been convinced by the arguments put forward in this thread that
> explicit enter/exit methods taking class+method strings should not
> be encouraged
Actually, I agree. I'd prefer to see that semantic state encoded in the log
message, which I feel is much cleaner.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
