on 8/14/01 5:08 PM, "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Like I said, I used to agree with you.
> 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.
Jason's excellent argument against this is that Log4J provides an API to
allow you to plug in other logging implementations. I forget the name right
now, but starts with an "A..."
> 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.
I agree about the need. However, you contradict yourself:
"b) we remember it's an ABSTRACTION and do not try to make it a logger."
and
"some components need logging."
I'm not sure they need the abstraction layer though.
-jon
