--- robert burrell donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 11:24 +1200, Simon Kitching
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 21:01 +0100, robert burrell
> donkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 10:43 +0000,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > protected boolean
> isJdk13LumberjackAvailable() {
> > > >
> > > > + // note: the algorithm here is
> different from isLog4JAvailable.
> > > > + // I think isLog4JAvailable is
> correct....see bugzilla#31597
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > could do with going through all the
> isAvailable's and checking whether
> > > their algorithms are correct. however, i suspect
> that brian's approach
> > > will be needed to deal correctly with some
> circumstances. if no one
> > > feels like volunteering should probably record
> this in bugzilla so we
> > > don't lose track...
> >
> > If by "brian's approach" you mean creating an
> instance of the logger
> > class in order to test whether that logging lib is
> *really* available, I
> > agree.
>
> yes
>
> (hopefully brian will jump in here and correct any
> misunderstandings)
>
+1
> > Not only is it more reliable, but it's a cleaner
> solution; currently the
> > LogFactoryImpl class is making *assumptions* about
> what classes the
> > various logging adapters depend on. That
> information should be only in
> > the logging adapter class.
>
> +1
>
> in addition, the specification allows variation as
> to the timing of
> error reporting. i believe that creating an
> instances would give more
> consistency across JVMs.
>
> > The only problem with creating an instance of the
> logger is that we
> > would have to pass a category string to the logger
> constructor, and
> > therefore must build an assumption into
> LogFactoryImpl about what
> > category names are valid for the underlying
> logger. Can we assume that
> > an empty string is a valid category for all logger
> libraries? Can we
> > assume that "apache" or
> "org.apache.commons.logging" are valid category
> > strings? Perhaps some loggers only accept valid
> URLs as
> > categories...yes, I'm playing devil's advocate a
> bit here. I guess we
> > could always say that the writer of the logging
> adapter is required to
> > return a valid logger instance for category "",
> even if that is not
> > normally a category that is valid to the
> underlying library.
>
> IIRC brian's patch refactored the code so that the
> test also constructed
> the correct logger instance (or something like
> that). if you don't beat
> me to it, i'll commit the patch onto one of the
> branches so that
> everyone can easily take a look at the approach.
>
> (again hopefully brian will jump in here if i've
> made any mistakes)
>
Looks good.
> - robert
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
