Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 28 July 2008 14:33, Marcel Offermans wrote:
I'd prefer a name that reflects the main features of this logger. Something
like plugable logger, or log adapter.
Main feature; Interception of calls to many/most existing Log framework in
legacy code that is OSGi-enabled without being OSGi dependent.
Current detail; Uses Log4J behind the scenes, and inadvertently exposes the
Log4J properties configuration format via ManagedService. Perhaps not
optimal, but a compromise made 2-3 years ago.
Suggestions;
log.flogger (I love that name...)
log.enterprise
log.general
So, as I was saying, if we were ever to get another logger that was also
a robust and general logger, then it wouldn't be easy to differentiate
it from this logger if we chose a name like that latter two.
The more I think about it, we should probably let our documentation
indicate the intended features and usage of our projects and not try to
squeeze this into the module name unless there is an obvious choice. For
example, if a logger was tied to a particular technology, like RMI, then
it might make sense to call it log.rmi, but in this case I do not see a
specific feature that captures everything.
As such, I am leaning toward giving it a name. If Niclas likes Flogger,
I am fine with that.
Anyone else have any thoughts about all of this?
-> richard
