You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Richard Sitze <rs...@us.ibm.com> on 2002/04/05 00:15:24 UTC
Re: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
OK then, let's see what happens:
I PROPOSE that the classes in commons logging be rearranged as follows:
no change:
org.apache.commons.logging.Log
org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Jdk14Loger.java
org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JCategoryLog.java
org.apache.commons.logging.impl.LogKitLogger.java
org.apache.commons.logging.impl.NoOpLog.java
org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog.java
rename package, and add JavaDoc to explain or confuse as appropriate:
org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogFactory
org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogSource (deprecate?)
org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogFactoryImpl
org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogConfigurationException
org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.Log4jFactoryImpl
Justification:
1. Provide a logging interface independent of (or
at least disassociated from) factory or other framework.
2. Make changes NOW before someone else invents yet another logging
interface to accomplish this "goal".
Cons:
1. Requires changes to user's code (minimal?).
Alternatives:
1. Leave as-is
2. use o.a.c.logFactory.* instead of o.a.c.l.factory, to further
distinguish/confuse.
<ras>
[Dang, where IS that ring when you need it!?!?!]
<ps>
If this exchange were by paper-mail, I'd be investing in more than one
logging enterprise...
</ps>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze rsitze@us.ibm.com
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
"Geir Magnusson
Jr." To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
<geirm@optonline cc:
.net> Subject: Re: [logging] Need interface...
04/04/2002 03:09
PM
Please respond
to "Jakarta
Commons
Developers List"
On 4/4/02 11:30 AM, "Richard Sitze" <rs...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I think we are circling around the same point.
Maybe.
>
> I don't see the value of the interface w/o framework as-per your comments
> below. You CANNOT use the interface for "totally generic code" without
> forcing a framework into the code also... SOMETHING has to attach an
> implementation to the logger, via pull (factory) or push (external
> dependencies) model. So, you are going to be subscribing to one or the
> other.
And SOMETHING has to be there anyway to use the
component/class/package/module that uses o.a.c.l, right? I just don't want
to be told exactly what has to be there...
>
> On the other hand, we could do a bit of disassociation here: move the
> factory and other elements of the "framework" into a separate package,
and
> introduce a new package for the push model:
>
> org.apache.commons.logging.pull
> org.apache.commons.logging.push
>
> (and no, I wouldn't vote for these for final names :-)
Nor would I.
I would hope though that in o.a.c.l lives the basic interfaces...
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
-1
I see too much confusion for any voting.
What about letting the dust settle just a bit more?
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sitze [mailto:rsitze@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:15 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
> Importance: High
>
>
> OK then, let's see what happens:
>
> I PROPOSE that the classes in commons logging be rearranged as follows:
>
> no change:
> org.apache.commons.logging.Log
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Jdk14Loger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JCategoryLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.LogKitLogger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.NoOpLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog.java
>
> rename package, and add JavaDoc to explain or confuse as appropriate:
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogFactory
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogSource (deprecate?)
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogFactoryImpl
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogConfigurationException
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.Log4jFactoryImpl
>
>
> Justification:
>
> 1. Provide a logging interface independent of (or
> at least disassociated from) factory or other framework.
>
> 2. Make changes NOW before someone else invents yet another logging
> interface to accomplish this "goal".
>
>
> Cons:
>
> 1. Requires changes to user's code (minimal?).
>
>
>
> Alternatives:
>
> 1. Leave as-is
> 2. use o.a.c.logFactory.* instead of o.a.c.l.factory, to further
> distinguish/confuse.
>
>
> <ras>
> [Dang, where IS that ring when you need it!?!?!]
>
> <ps>
> If this exchange were by paper-mail, I'd be investing in more than one
> logging enterprise...
> </ps>
>
>
> *******************************************
> Richard A. Sitze rsitze@us.ibm.com
> CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
> IBM WebSphere Development
>
>
>
>
> "Geir Magnusson
>
> Jr." To: Jakarta
> Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> <geirm@optonline cc:
>
> .net> Subject: Re:
> [logging] Need interface...
>
>
>
> 04/04/2002 03:09
>
> PM
>
> Please respond
>
> to "Jakarta
>
> Commons
>
> Developers List"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/4/02 11:30 AM, "Richard Sitze" <rs...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we are circling around the same point.
>
> Maybe.
>
> >
> > I don't see the value of the interface w/o framework as-per
> your comments
> > below. You CANNOT use the interface for "totally generic code" without
> > forcing a framework into the code also... SOMETHING has to attach an
> > implementation to the logger, via pull (factory) or push (external
> > dependencies) model. So, you are going to be subscribing to one or the
> > other.
>
> And SOMETHING has to be there anyway to use the
> component/class/package/module that uses o.a.c.l, right? I just
> don't want
> to be told exactly what has to be there...
>
> >
> > On the other hand, we could do a bit of disassociation here: move the
> > factory and other elements of the "framework" into a separate package,
> and
> > introduce a new package for the push model:
> >
> > org.apache.commons.logging.pull
> > org.apache.commons.logging.push
> >
> > (and no, I wouldn't vote for these for final names :-)
>
> Nor would I.
>
> I would hope though that in o.a.c.l lives the basic interfaces...
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
> System and Software Consulting
> Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things...
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
> mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <
> mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [logging] Need interface... VOTE
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
-1.
The registration/discovery mechansims are essential for Logging
functionality.
Not to mention backward compatibility.
Costin
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Richard Sitze wrote:
> OK then, let's see what happens:
>
> I PROPOSE that the classes in commons logging be rearranged as follows:
>
> no change:
> org.apache.commons.logging.Log
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Jdk14Loger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JCategoryLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.LogKitLogger.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.NoOpLog.java
> org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog.java
>
> rename package, and add JavaDoc to explain or confuse as appropriate:
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogFactory
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.LogSource (deprecate?)
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogFactoryImpl
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.LogConfigurationException
> org.apache.commons.logging.factory.impl.Log4jFactoryImpl
>
>
> Justification:
>
> 1. Provide a logging interface independent of (or
> at least disassociated from) factory or other framework.
>
> 2. Make changes NOW before someone else invents yet another logging
> interface to accomplish this "goal".
>
>
> Cons:
>
> 1. Requires changes to user's code (minimal?).
>
>
>
> Alternatives:
>
> 1. Leave as-is
> 2. use o.a.c.logFactory.* instead of o.a.c.l.factory, to further
> distinguish/confuse.
>
>
> <ras>
> [Dang, where IS that ring when you need it!?!?!]
>
> <ps>
> If this exchange were by paper-mail, I'd be investing in more than one
> logging enterprise...
> </ps>
>
>
> *******************************************
> Richard A. Sitze rsitze@us.ibm.com
> CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
> IBM WebSphere Development
>
>
>
> "Geir Magnusson
> Jr." To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> <geirm@optonline cc:
> .net> Subject: Re: [logging] Need interface...
>
> 04/04/2002 03:09
> PM
> Please respond
> to "Jakarta
> Commons
> Developers List"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/4/02 11:30 AM, "Richard Sitze" <rs...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we are circling around the same point.
>
> Maybe.
>
> >
> > I don't see the value of the interface w/o framework as-per your comments
> > below. You CANNOT use the interface for "totally generic code" without
> > forcing a framework into the code also... SOMETHING has to attach an
> > implementation to the logger, via pull (factory) or push (external
> > dependencies) model. So, you are going to be subscribing to one or the
> > other.
>
> And SOMETHING has to be there anyway to use the
> component/class/package/module that uses o.a.c.l, right? I just don't want
> to be told exactly what has to be there...
>
> >
> > On the other hand, we could do a bit of disassociation here: move the
> > factory and other elements of the "framework" into a separate package,
> and
> > introduce a new package for the push model:
> >
> > org.apache.commons.logging.pull
> > org.apache.commons.logging.push
> >
> > (and no, I wouldn't vote for these for final names :-)
>
> Nor would I.
>
> I would hope though that in o.a.c.l lives the basic interfaces...
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
> System and Software Consulting
> Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things...
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
> mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <
> mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>