On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jari Worsley wrote:
> [snip]
> Ok, hypothetically speaking, lets say I'm in an environment where I have
> "Acme Logging service" setup, and that's what I want to use for log
> output. I have to either:
>
> - if commons uses Log4j then I must write adapter classes to connect to
> my logging service
> or
> - if commons uses a "logging abstraction layer", then I either accept
> that because I'm not using log4j all logging output will be lost, or I
> have to write adapter classes to connect to my logging service.
>
> So in either scenario I have to:
> "write adapter classes to connect to my logging service".
>
That's correct -- if you *do* want to integrate it, you have to write some
sort of adapter layer (except that the adapter for Log4J is transparently
included already :-).
But what if, for *whatever* reason, I don't *like* Log4J? Using those
APis directly means I don't have any choice but to use it.
> [snip]
> So what's the argument/discussion actually about? Whatever way you go,
> if I use a weird and wonderful logging service and am unwilling to
> change to log4j or whatever, then I have to write code to connect the
> commons components together.
>
But what about the case where I *don't* want to integrate it? What if I
just want to use a collection class, and to heck with the output?
> Jari
Craig
