Hey Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Right, I think we agree here. > Cool. > I'm exactly proposing this. I suggest you really have a look at Avalon. > Avalon is very far from being another large library. Avalon Framework is > 46K, LogKit is about 52K. Is that large? Okay, my "two large libraries" remark was off-centre, but you really need to consider those who, for whatever reason, simply *can't* use Avalon. The reasons may be technical, political or otherwise, but if FOP forces people to use Avalon, then you will end up having people who won't use FOP because of it. I'd love to have the time to get to know Avalon, but I just don't. In addition, the there is no way the particular project here at work I want to embed FOP in is going to use Avalon. Period. If the dependency on Avalon can't be broken, then there's very little chance FOP will be used for this project. Which I'll find very dissapointing, because I'm a big fan of FOP. > org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.Logger is almost exactly what you did > in your proposal, except that you introduce yet another API, Okay, in it's defence, the LoggingHandler API is very small, being one interface large. The LogkitLoggingHandler class provides a transparent wrapper for using Logkit and Avalon with FOP. For existing applications, such as the command line app, it took (IIRC) one extra line and changing three others to use the LoggingHandler mechanism, and it still uses Logkit for the logging. If you want to use your own logger, then just wrap it in a LogkitLoggingHandler and away you go. The amount of additional work required to use the new interface is absolutely minimal, and it will still work with Avalon, most likely by changing one single line of code or configuration. > We're talking about reusing mature code. And that sometimes means we have one > more jar to include. I'm not talking about throwing it all away - you can still use all of that existing code if you want. And sometimes one more jar is one too many. > I'm disappointed that you're shooting against something you don't know. > I'll be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with Avalon, but I do know I can't use it every project, even if I had the time to learn about it, and I also know that if you start making core FOP functionality depend on external services such as Avalon, a lot of embedders will go elsewehre. > Seems like we agree here. > What I don't understand is how you can agree with using something like ErrorHandler but be against using a LoggingHandler, which works *precisely* in the same way. It's the *exact* same mechanism, but for logging. If it still works with Avalon and Logkit, and works for embedders, how can you lose from such a win-win situation? Mike. -- Michael Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recall Design <http://www.recalldesign.com/> s: 53 Gilbert Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia t: +61 8 8217 0500 f: +61 8 8217 0555
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
