Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Seems like there is an important issue here, but the discussion can't > seem to escape out of the thicket of the example. > > 1) Should we allow any logging from within the classlibrary?
Just in case there was any doubt from my earlier postings... I think we should not be explicitly logging debug info as part of our class library implementation. > 2) How should we do it? > > There are a bunch of ways for the second question... using j.u.l, using > IOC and injecting our own logging target to reduce dependencies and > make people think before logging, using aspects? Both j.u.l and IoC would require code in the implementation to perform the logging actions (or check the guard). Putting this logic throughout the class library will IMHO result in module coupling, code bloat and overall performance degradation (or no logging!). Adding logging statements is expecting the class library developer to decide /a priori/ what debug|trace info is useful to the person trying to resolve a problem. Existing debug|trace tools work with the runtime to figure out the pertinent information as you are interested in it. (The only caveat being 'flight data recorder' type trace where the trace points are typically very low overhead and always on). > Comments? We probably should try to get to a conclusion in general... The logging info being proposed is developer-oriented. I hope that people are not expecting our users to understand our developer trace info -- we, as developers, have better tools than printf to figure out what is happening. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
