Ceki, I think you are right: There seems to be no need for an abstract Logger (trait or abstract class) and a default implementation. Better have a single concrete Logger class wrapping a SLF4JLogger instance.
How shall we proceed? Wait some time and do the change then? Change it immediately? Heiko On 1 November 2010 22:28, Ceki Gülcü <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Heiko, > > Looking at logger.scala, I was wondering why the Logger trait was a trait > and not a class. I understand that as a trait any class can mixin Logger and > methods such as debug(), info() would be available in that class. However, > there is already a trait caller Logging which allows the mixing class to > write logger.debug("..."). > > It seems to me that the Logging trait is sufficient in most cases. I would > like to propose to make Logger a class instead of a Trait and to get rid of > DefaultLogger. This would make the code a little simpler without loss of > "desired" flexibility. I don't think we should allow classes to write just > debug("...") or should we? > > WDYT? > > -- > Ceki > _______________________________________________ > slf4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev > -- Heiko Seeberger Company: weiglewilczek.com Blog: heikoseeberger.name Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net Akka - Simpler Scalability, Fault-Tolerance, Concurrency & Remoting through Actors: akkasource.org
_______________________________________________ slf4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev
