Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/25/2004 06:25:51
PM:
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 18:28 +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
In my last message, I failed to emphasize the brittleness of the
break into interfaces hypothesis. Even if at a high-level of
abstraction two APIs perform
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 18:28 +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
In my last message, I failed to emphasize the brittleness of the
break into interfaces hypothesis. Even if at a high-level of
abstraction two APIs perform the same task, this does not mean that
they can be abstracted away by
Simon, I agree with you 80% and I think you're right that JCL should
stay as-is for now.
I think you're dead-on with this new line of thinking. It won't seem
like it because now I'm going to spend the rest of this email
disagreeing with you, but I'm with you on the big leap you took in your
Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
all the attempts made at bridging X.25 and TCP/IP, both well defined
and stable protocols, have failed miserably, even if both stacks
supposedly fit into layers 1-4 of the 7 layer OSI network model.
But X.25 and TCP/IP use two
Henning,
Thank you for sharing your mind. You have the right to pooh-pooh my
opinions as much I have the right to express them. I still happen to
think that the X.25 TCP/IP analogy bears relevance to the
discussion. The fact that a simple analogy was sufficient to push your
Whether you choose Log to be an interface or an abstract class does
not really matter. The point I am trying to convey is that jcl will
not be able to abstract more than one logging API. Although desirable,
abstraction is not technically feasible.
At 12:59 AM 12/20/2004, Matt Sgarlata wrote:
I
Aren't you assuming that things can be placed in nice orthogonal and
independent boxes?
Let X and Y be logging APIs that JCL attempts to abstract. Let IX be
an interface unique to API X. Let JCL-IX be JCL's mirror of interface
IX. If the end-user sprinkles her code with JCL-IX calls, there are
two
In my last message, I failed to emphasize the brittleness of the
break into interfaces hypothesis. Even if at a high-level of
abstraction two APIs perform the same task, this does not mean that
they can be abstracted away by a thin facade (or bridge). For example,
all the attempts
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Log4j version 1.4 or 2.0 is likely to introduce the notion of multiple
domains for categorizing logging statements. When that happens, the
notion of logging levels will be looked at very differently.
Commons-logging promises to abstract different logging APIs such as
log4j,
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Log4j version 1.4 or 2.0 is likely to introduce the notion of multiple
domains for categorizing logging statements. When that happens, the
notion of logging levels will be looked at very differently.
Commons-logging promises to abstract different logging APIs such as
log4j,
10 matches
Mail list logo
