On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > So, if I understand correctly the reason for adopting commons-logging > API is for convenience rather than non-intrusiveness as a library > (with respect to logging).
The goals of commons-logging ( as I understand them ): - non-intrusiveness - convenience - multiple implementations - simple to use - secure - useable in container environment ( and probably more ) Each of those goals is important. > With commons-logging, the end user will only have to configure the > logging API that common-logging selects (or detects) but the selection > mechanism is dynamic such that there are many ways and reasons for > which the selected API will be the wrong one. This is the uncertainty > factor I am talking about. Uncertainty breeds confusion and confusion > breeds despair. Not quite - it's the same mechansim used for JAXP detection. You can set a logging API explicitely if you want ( system property - no confusion here ). Detection is used to simplify users' life and reduce the number of required settings. The only possible problem is if the user has multiple loggers installed ( in which case he should use the explicit setting if he feels the need) . Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
