Nicholas,
As you are probably aware, the recently checked in code follows your
proposal even if hours of previous work had to be thrown out to get
there.
Your scheme is less intuitive then my initial proposal where Category
extends Logger Category. However, it has the distinct advantage of
ful
Objective
-
Gradually remove the Category class in favor of Logger:
a) starting today, it should be possible to use log4j without ever
seeing a reference to category (be it the class Category or any method
or exception containing the word "category"). An added feature would
be that a ne
This one!! :
| Attempt III --
|
| public class Logger {
|
|
| /**
| @deprecated Category class is deprecated.
| Please use the {link #getLogger} instead
If you are maintaining code for a older pr
Endre, Jim, Chris, Paul and others,
Logger is becoming a more widely recognized label. It is also probably
more intuitive. I won't argue about that.
If it were possible/easy to keep backward compatibility with existing
log4j client code and at the same time rename Category to Logger I
would to
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
>
ins the best solution to my
logging requirements.
Cheers,
Jeroen
--
Jeroen C. van Gelderen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 22:20
To: LOG4J Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: Revised API P
> 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]
w docs for Log4J, I understood immediately
the Category, Appender, and Layout concepts).
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Revi
> 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
makes very good
sense.
-Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'LOG4J Developers Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 9:18 PM
Subject: RE: Revised API Proposal
I would have to str
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
ckage, but why should you have to do that translation? Logger,
Level, and LogManager fit much more closely to people's way of thinking
about logging.
-Jim Moore
-Original Message-----
From: Christopher Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:54 AM
To: LOG4J Develop
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
At 08:51 31.08.2001 +0200, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>|
>| Hello all,
>|
>| I just wanted to inform you that it is plain impossible to retain
>| backward compatibility with existing log4j (user) code and get away
>| with renaming Category as Logger. I just thr
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Revised API Proposal
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> |
> | Hello all,
> |
> | I just wanted to inform you that it is plain impossible to retain
> | backward compatibility with existing log4j (user)
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| Hello all,
|
| I just wanted to inform you that it is plain impossible to retain
| backward compatibility with existing log4j (user) code and get away
| with renaming Category as Logger. I just threw away hours of work to
| retain backward compatibility.
Why not create a new logger class, and keep the the
old category (deprecated and changed to call Logger's
functions) for backward compatibility
--- Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to inform you that it is plain
> impossible to retain backward compatibilit
17 matches
Mail list logo
