On 08.02.2004 01:34:16 Glen Mazza wrote: > --- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - avalon and logging for the base library. > > > > The avalon jar is indeed quite small (only 25K or so), > but this dependency I'd like us to eventually get rid > of in favor of what Xalan does with its messaging and > i18n instead. (I suspect AH or RX don't bother with > loggers, they're probably more like Xalan as well.)
I don't think logging is the same as providing user-friendly and localized error messages. I'd agree that Xalan's approach is good and we could or even should adopt it but IMO it doesn't replace logging which is primarily for debugging purposes (be it for Java developers or stylesheet producers). It is debatable whether the Avalon Framework's logging approach is the best. I don't think so. There are situations where I should have use Commons Logging instead of Avalon Logging (PDF library for example). Both have their uses. I'll gladly outline if desired. > Xalan appears to route all messages through an > XMLMessages.java [1] (with a couple of subclasses for > XPath and XSLT-specific messages) with the result > going to stdout by default. (I don't know what > happens in embedded usage, whether those messages can > be re-routed to a logger of the user's choosing.) > Also, they use message constant enums so they can get > the messages to appear in multiple languages. [2] The problem I have with Xalan is that they do no logging. Sometimes it would be good to get some feedback on what is going on inside. At the time where I had to do some intensive error searches inside Xalan I encountered a lot of System.outs that where commented out (I don't know if this has changed in the meantime, though). Indicates that they should have used a logging package. And when you have a software live at a customer site you will love the chance to change the debug level to see what's going on inside when you're in trouble. Jeremias Maerki
