, I think the use of the common-logging is a good idea.
Dirk
- Original Message -
From: "Goeckel, Mika" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [castor-dev] FieldMolder & FieldHandler
> Hi!
>
> Be
PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2002 10:07
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [castor-dev] FieldMolder & FieldHandler
Hi Dirk & al.,
Actually using log4J inside directly Castor is on my to-do list but I
haven't found the time yet to address the issue with the other
deve
nks,
>
> Arnaud
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dirk Hoffmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 9:59 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [castor-dev] FieldMolder & FieldHandler
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
From: Dirk Hoffmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [castor-dev] FieldMolder & FieldHandler
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I was more thinking about to use log4j in the castor implementation. I
believe
> it wi
Hi Bruce,
I was more thinking about to use log4j in the castor implementation. I believe
it will not be a big issue to replace the old logging (there is not so much
;-).
Dirk
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2002 04:56 schrieb Bruce Snyder:
> This one time, at band camp, Dirk Hoffmann said:
>
> DH>3. T
Hi Thomas,
I like to think about the FieldMolder & FieldHandler part. Actually, I have
done some refactoring in this part. I will take care of the separating of XML
and JDO mapping.
If I finish, I will send you the code, OK?
Dirk
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2002 03:03 schrieb Thomas Yip:
> Hi Dirk
This one time, at band camp, Dirk Hoffmann said:
DH>3. To stop the questions about logging; why don't use log4j ;-)
Dirk,
Castor's logging was implemented before Log4J was well known. In
the JDO FAQ there are directions about integrating Castor's logging
with Log4J. It's very easy and I use it
Hi Dirk,
You are right, that part of code should be refactor.
And, I admit that many things should be done better.
The idea was separating the mapping loading
of JDO and XML. Because two parts evolves,
and each adds significant amount of specific
mapping that doesn't make sense for the other.
Hi Dirk,
Dirk Hoffmann wrote:
>
> I think its not a good idea to copy code, to separate common things. The
> behaviour of FieldMolder and FieldHandler are nearly the same.
I can't really comment on the decision process that took place, as
Thomas was in charge of Castor JDO. However, I do know
I think its not a good idea to copy code, to separate common things. The
behaviour of FieldMolder and FieldHandler are nearly the same.
As far as I know, the sequence is as follows (please correct me, if not):
MappingLoader reads the mapping file and generate the ClassDescriptors and the
Fiel
10 matches
Mail list logo
