Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> At 22:01 22.02.2001 +0100, Anders Kristensen wrote:
> >Jin,
> >
> >Funny you should ask, because the getters you ask for have actually been
> >applied to the log4j version in the CVS repository and will be included
> >in the next release. However, we've been discussing the option of
> >changing the current option OptionHandler configuration strategy from
> >something based on
> >
> > void setOption(String key, String value) { ... }
> > String getOption(String key) { ... }
> > String[] getOptionsStrings()
> >
> >to something based on regular Java setters and getters, e.g.
> >
> > void setFilename(String name)
> > String getFilename() { ... }
> >
> >and then use a Beans-like strategy or reflection or something to figure
> >out which parameters a log4j component knows about. That seems to be a
> >better approach but requires a bit more work.
> >
> >Anders
>
> Anders,
>
> I think that the getX/setX or bean paradigm is more widely accepted.
> We should probably go with that.
I tend to agree with that.
> The getOption methods are cool except that if they go into an
> official release it will damn hard to take them back. So if we
> decide to switch I think we should switch as soon as possible.
No argument there either. Also, I agree that there absolutely shouldn't
be two ways of configuring log4j components.
> I actually intend to release 1.1beta before this weekend though
> that is not a promise... What do you think? Ceki
Great. I'd like to work on the options bit but unfortunately there's no
chance I'll have time for it until a week from now.
--
Anders Kristensen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
