On 8/22/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/22/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, for one, we only really need one logging instance for the whole
> library. Second, and admittedly this is subjective, the
> java.util.logging API is a horribly designed, obtuse API. I'd rather
> see us write a small, clean API along the lines of Seam's logging class
> that utilizes varargs to reduce the need for isDebugEnabled().
I agree that j.u.logging is a PoS, but it's ubiquitous, and for our
purposes, it workds fine. We may only need one logger for the whole
framework, but it's just as easy to create a logger per class, and you can
still configure them all at once. I'd rather fix j.u.logging than build yet
another API.
Patrick blogged recently [1] about creating a wrapper for j.u.logging
and the issue he encountered. Looking at the j.u.logging
implementation in Commons Logging [2] - they resolved the issue he hit
by determining the class/method from the stack trace and using the
logp methods - rather than leaving j.u.logging to fill those values
in.
Niall
[1] http://tinyurl.com/o7yqp
[2] http://tinyurl.com/oup4w
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
