Just thought I had to get that in there... ;)
-Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Revised API Proposal
> > P.S. Logger could also be someone w
Hi,
I'd just like to note that I've found it common for the Log4J Category
to clash with one of my own classes named Category. As you note, the
meaning of Logger is overloaded but I think that Logger is less likely
to clash in a software system than Category. (This problem is of course
easily wor
> P.S. Logger could also be someone who harvests trees.
Touche
Those poor, poor trees.
--jason
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Speaking of documentation, that brings up a good point:
- If we change the class to "Logger", the docs need to be changed
- What about the configuration file structure? Do we leave them as
"categories", or rename them "loggers"? If we change it over to loggers, it
doesn't make sense: "com.java_
> The problem I have with calling it a Logger is that it hides the concept of
> Categories from the developer.
Isn't that what documentation is for?
I personally think that Logger is better than Category. Logger shows that
the object is used for logging messages, where Category could be an obje
I guess from an evangelism standpoint it makes sense to call it a logger, as
most developers are used to using the NT Event Log or Syslog, but when I use
Log4J for my own projects I usually do the following:
static Category my_errors =
Category.getInstance([someclass].class.getName());
.
.
.
try
I agree with what Jim said about "Logger" being far more intuitive than
"Category". But ... I do have a soft spot for the term for the following
reason. When I first took a look at log4j, I looked in the package for a
class called "Logger" and, of course, didn't find one. When I found out
the
I would have to strongly disagree about "Category is the more intuitive
name". I do quite a bit of Log4j evangelism, and invariably the moment I
start to explain the API the very first question out of everybody's mouth
is, "'Category'? Why's the logging class called 'Category' instead of
'Logger
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| >*You* changed the whole package name from org.log4j to org.apahce.log4j
| >without lifting a eyebrow. But doing this Category->Logger move which is
| >such a much more intuitive change you wont do.. Hmm..
|
| Is this a provocation? Wishing you a good week
