At 12:59 AM 7/17/2006, Graham Lea wrote:
Are you planning on the "binding" still occurring in StaticLogBinder?
Yes.
If so, in which jar would this class be?
I'll assume "the logging-specific JAR", and ask the next question, which
is, Is it a good idea for the API jar to refer to a class that is not in
the API?
I see what you mean. However, as I see it, the LoggerFactory class and in
particular the LoggerFactory.getLogger have to be considered as *not* being
part of the API. Admittedly, its a doubtful premise, but I don't think we
can do better without dropping the static factory mechanism embodied in
LoggerFactory. Supplying the appropriate LoggerFactory class with the
binding becomes part of the SLF4J contract.
Is the separation really cleaner if the API jar requires classes that
aren't contained in itself?
Well, the API would only consist of interfaces (and smaller helper
classes), I believe the approach allows the implementation of services
using for example OSGI, which is not currently possible.
Some things to think about there.
Come back at me if what I've said doesn't make sense.
It makes sense. Thank you for your input.
Graham.
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
