Curt,
It is not only a question of timing or opportunity.
IMHO, the advantages of constructor injection over interface
dependency injector are minor. I am understandably not very keen on
going through yet another series of pervasive changes in order to eke
out a delta.
Not only that, we already hav
On Jan 6, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd still like to see LoggerRepositoryAware disappear in favor of
passing in the LoggerRepository in the constructor, but would not do
that just at this moment.
This reminds me of "Forms Of Dependency Injection"
http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/
At 11:02 PM 1/6/2005, Curt Arnold wrote:
Would like Appender and other existing interfaces to NOT extend
LoggerRepositoryAware.
I'd still like to see LoggerRepositoryAware disappear in favor of passing
in the LoggerRepository in the constructor, but would not do that just at
this moment.
This r
+1 on rename of Component to LoggingRepositoryAware.
Don't like LRABase, okay with ComponentBase, LoggerComponentBase or
LoggingComponentBase.
Would like Appender and other existing interfaces to NOT extend
LoggerRepositoryAware.
I'd still like to see LoggerRepositoryAware disappear in favor of
I think what Mark was saying was correct, in that the base/abstract
class could end up supporting more than just that the *Aware interface,
so the name of the base class should not be tied to one specific
interface name. ComponentBase is not a bad choice if it wasn't for the
fact that there is
At 09:04 PM 1/6/2005, you wrote:
+1 too, that's a nice specific name. Still not too happy with
ComponentBase though. LoggingComponentBase?
How about LRAwareBase?
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:07 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: [POLL] Component and ComponentBase
>
>
> > The requirement to have both Component as an interface and
> > Compo
elopers List
> Subject: Re: [POLL] Component and ComponentBase
>
>
> > The requirement to have both Component as an interface and
> > ComponentBase as a class, stems from the fact that we make the
> > distinction between Appender the interface and AppenderSkeleton the
&
Base could still be there. In the future it could implement other
needed/required interfaces.
-Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:07 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: [POLL] Component and Co
Sounds reasonable.
At 06:00 PM 1/5/2005, you wrote:
At this point, the [POLL] in the subject is misleading since the changes
have been started (possibly finished) in the CVS due to an accidental
build breakage when some of the changes slipped in. I don't think anyone
is advocating backing them
At this point, the [POLL] in the subject is misleading since the
changes have been started (possibly finished) in the CVS due to an
accidental build breakage when some of the changes slipped in. I don't
think anyone is advocating backing them out, but I do have reservations
that I haven't had
Mark,
As I understand it, a marker interface does not have methods. Since
Component has one method, namely setLoggerRepository(), it is not a
marker interface by definition.
The Appender interface extends the Component interface. So when you
get a handle on an object implementing the Appender inter
> No, log4j objects will not be referenced as Component. It is not a
> marker interface either.
>
> The requirement to have both Component as an interface and
> ComponentBase as a class, stems from the fact that we make the
> distinction between Appender the interface and AppenderSkeleton the
> cl
The requirement to have both Component as an interface and
ComponentBase as a class, stems from the fact that we make the
distinction between Appender the interface and AppenderSkeleton the
class. Implementations of Appender derive from AppenderSkeleton but
all the other code in log4j refers to Ap
At 06:27 PM 1/4/2005, Mark Womack wrote:
Not a bad idea per se, but what is the motivation with making it an
interface? Will the outside world need to know about the Component
interface in any way? Do we intend to reference log4j objects as Component
or maybe use it as a marker interface?
No, log
Not a bad idea per se, but what is the motivation with making it an
interface? Will the outside world need to know about the Component
interface in any way? Do we intend to reference log4j objects as Component
or maybe use it as a marker interface?
If we just need this internally for log4j then
On Jan 4, 2005, at 6:08 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 08:53 PM 1/3/2005, Curt Arnold wrote:
In addition, it is probably not good to have "components" reference
the concrete LoggerRepository class. We should probably introduce an
interface (maybe "LoggerContext") that exposes the methods on
LoggerRe
At 08:53 PM 1/3/2005, Curt Arnold wrote:
In addition, it is probably not good to have "components" reference the
concrete LoggerRepository class. We should probably introduce an
interface (maybe "LoggerContext") that exposes the methods on
LoggerRepository that "components" are expected to use.
At 07:39 PM 1/3/2005, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
I don't think it's a bad idea, but could there be a more specific or
domain-related name for it? Component(Base) is very generic, whereas
Appender(Skeleton) is more logging-domain-specific.
Yoav
--- Ceki
Component and ComponentBase are indeed generic names. However, these
classes are not for public consumption. They are intended to be used
*internally* by log4j components (Appenders, Layouts, Filters, Receivers,
ConnectionSources, etc.).
At 06:49 PM 1/3/2005, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
I don't thi
In addition, it is probably not good to have "components" reference the
concrete LoggerRepository class. We should probably introduce an
interface (maybe "LoggerContext") that exposes the methods on
LoggerRepository that "components" are expected to use.
---
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
I don't think it's a bad idea, but could there be a more specific or
domain-related name for it? Component(Base) is very generic, whereas
Appender(Skeleton) is more logging-domain-specific.
Yoav
--- Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only
Hi,
I don't think it's a bad idea, but could there be a more specific or
domain-related name for it? Component(Base) is very generic, whereas
Appender(Skeleton) is more logging-domain-specific.
Yoav
--- Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anybody think it is a bad idea? If yes, any alter
23 matches
Mail list logo
