On 8/8/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/7/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We talked about this before ( > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg16784.html) but > > didn't come to any conclusions. So, > > > > 1/ What is the requirement? > > 2/ What is the technical solution? > > 3/ When should we try and get it done? > > > > To get things going again here are some thoughts drawn from what was > said > > in > > the referenced thread. > > > > 1/ An API in line with accepted logging/management practices to support > > arbitrary debugging and runtime info, warning and error logging > > A common approach to exception/error handling specifically around > the > > detail recorded in the error messages > > Internationalization/localization > > Execution Tracing > > > > 2/ Keeping it simple was a popular sentiment > > A number of java logging solutions have been proposed Log4J, SLF4J > > etc. > > I believe DAS is using Log4J. > > We have dependencies that also use logging tools. We can take a > > look > > at how others approach this, e.g, quick glance at the last CxF release > > shows > > they include SLF4J jars > > Aspects were investigated to show how they can be used for tracing, > > seems like an interesting optional facility but adds extra > > complexity/dependencies > > There was also a suggestion that we could implement some higher > level > > tracing, e.g. runtime starts, stops, application loading, component > > instance > > creation etc. > > We need to move error message out of the code and into resource > files > > > > 3/ I think we can reasonably expect to agree what approach we are going > to > > take fairly quickly and provide some examples, i.e. before the next > > release? > > People suggested before that we take time out to go through the code > > based and bring it into line. This will take a lot of time but can we > get > > it > > into 1.0? > > > > Please add your thoughts to the list and we can then draw them together, > > try > > some of it out and come to some conclusions. > > > > Simon > > > > +1 for going with SLF4J. If we can decide on this soon then we can all > just > start adding it in to the code we're working on and debugging, and then > maybe have a focused sweep before 1.0 to make sure its in everywhere > useful. > > ...ant >
Cross posting to the user list also as I expect this is close to everyone heart. Can everyone reply to both lists. Thanks Simon
