--- Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 8/14/01 3:05 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we're going to do something like this, it seems
> to me we should either
> > adopt the "commons logger layer" that Rodney
> proposed, or bite the bullet
> > and pick which logging API we want to support. It
> doesn't make sense for
> > every commons package "Foo" to create their own
> "FooLogger" interface.
>
> At this point, after tons and tons of discussion, I
> have finally agreed with
> JVZ and settled on one logging system. Log4J.
>
> I'm actually a bit surprised to see a proposal for
> an abstraction layer in
> the commons.
>
> -jon
>
If it were just me, I would say, "forget it", and
stick with Log4J. However, the idea of an abstraction
layer has grown on me a little.
Here's the problem: I know that logging API Alpha
works great for me, but if I'm trying to release a
"common" component, I have to account that other users
may have a fancy customized configuration that only
works for logging API Beta. So do I alienate those
people, or do I try to accommodate them? Let's face
it, once Sun releases its API, it's going to get ugly.
I'm OK with the abstraction, as long as a) we get
reasonable buy-in, and b) we remember it's an
ABSTRACTION and do not try to make it a logger. I
really hope it bears out, although only time will tell
how acceptable an abstraction layer will be for all
the APIs out there. One thing is for sure: some
components need logging.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
