On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, businessdad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Christian grobmeier [via Apache Logging] > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, businessdad >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> in my opinion, a logging framework should never cause an application >> to fail. If you do that, it might happen that you reconfigure logging >> in production and - due to an error - you production app stops jus >> because of your logging framework. This is not nice too. >> >> That said, it is actually very easy if you still prefer require >> instead of included. >> >> You could exchange this file: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4php/trunk/src/main/php/LoggerAutoloader.php >> >> Another option is to patch log4php in such a way, the user can decide >> between require and include with some kind of ini parameter. >> >> What do you think? > > > The issue is precisely that, due to the include, Logger carries on also when > required classes are not loaded. Logger cannot work without LoggerHierarcy, > and it fires a fatal error when it tries to instantiate it. That means > backtracing the issue, just to find out that the file was not loaded. > > A Logger is a fundamental part of a system, not a fancy optional one like an > animated menu. If the Logger doesn't work, it should raise an error. Having > a website that keeps going on without anyone noticing that something is > broken is worse than having it stopped. > > Besides, any call to the Logger would fail anyway, triggering an error, like > in my case. Very simply, it would be easier to be informed of the root cause > (file can't be loaded) straight away, rather than having to figure it out > because some class doesn't exist.
Fair enough. Let's hear what Ivan says (the guy who does coding mainly these days) > About changing the Autoloader: I've done it already, together with several > other minor changes, but thanks for the suggestion. :) Hey, what about donating a patch to your favorite logging project? :-) We are always eager to get improvements into our code base. If you need help with that, let us know. Cheers Christian > > ________________________________ > View this message in context: Re: LoggerAutoloader - Why "include" and not > "require"? > > Sent from the Log4php - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
