You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Joseph Ottinger <ep...@hotmail.com> on 2002/09/19 15:50:05 UTC

commons-logging

I've got another (yes, yet another) logging framework planned, and I'd like 
support for it in commons-logging, but a few questions come up before I 
write my own wrappers:

1) Is commons-logging still aimed at the 1.1 API? Why?

2) Why don't you allow integral mappings to priorities, instead of calling 
the actual methods like info(), etc? (My proposed framework has many, many, 
many more levels, and they're not floodgated like commons-logging uses. In 
other words, INFO+ERROR is a viable "level".) Without integral mappings, I 
can make a mapper work, but there's absolutely no way to expose my logger's 
(proposed!) power to commons-logging without some other invocation 
mechanism.

That may not be a HUGE loss - but considering you could relatively easily 
support what's there now *and* a non-floodgate model, it's something to 
consider.

-----------------------------------------------
Joseph B. Ottinger       joeo@enigmastation.com
http://enigmastation.com          IT Consultant

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: commons-logging

Posted by Steve Downey <st...@netfolio.com>.
On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:50 am, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> I've got another (yes, yet another) logging framework planned, and I'd like
> support for it in commons-logging, but a few questions come up before I
> write my own wrappers:
>
> 1) Is commons-logging still aimed at the 1.1 API? Why?
>
> 2) Why don't you allow integral mappings to priorities, instead of calling
> the actual methods like info(), etc? (My proposed framework has many, many,
> many more levels, and they're not floodgated like commons-logging uses. In
> other words, INFO+ERROR is a viable "level".) Without integral mappings, I
> can make a mapper work, but there's absolutely no way to expose my logger's
> (proposed!) power to commons-logging without some other invocation
> mechanism.
>

Because if you want that control, you should use the underlying logging 
framework directly. Commons-logging is there to enable logging by components 
in a framework neutral manner. It needs to be a lowest common denominator 
API. If it did use level enums, it would still need to define its own, since 
one framework's DEBUG is not going to be == to another framework's DEBUG. So 
you end up with exactly the same semantics as .debug().




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

commons-logging, ObjectWeb MonoLog

Posted by "Sean C. Sullivan" <se...@seansullivan.com>.
>I've got another (yes, yet another) logging framework planned, 
>and I'd like support for it in commons-logging, 

You may also want to look at ObjectWeb MonoLog:

  http://www.objectweb.org/monolog/




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>