> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> I think we are on the same page, but just to make sure .... what I was
>> saying that I am against using Jakarta commons-logging, and in favor
>> of having our own similar public API...
>
> Uh..good that you explain it because I understood it completely wrong.
> Why on earth would you want to write your own logging layer and
> duplicate commons-logging?? You would then have to provide
> implementations for log4j AND jdk-logging, essentially just duplicating
> a lot of work. That's a serious piece of work for no apparent benefit.
> Also it's damn tricky because of classloader issues, it took both
> commons-logging and log4j a long time to get all that right.
> It would IMHO be much easier to just have a CayenneLogLevel class and
> use that in the two or three classes that require it (QueryLogger etc.)
>
> -h
Ok, I am having trouble explaining myself (partially cause I planned this
feature after 1.2 so I haven't explored all the options yet). I am not
concerned if we use Jakarta commons-logging in the backend. However the
goal of this effort is to avoid any explicit dependencies in the API (i.e.
in the method signatures) on either commons-logging or Log4J..
How this is done under the hood is irrelevant. If commons-logging is the
driving force to bootstrap other implementations, this is fine... The
requirement is that QueryLogger must support our custom levels. Also I
think levels are irrelevant for all other loggers...
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 13 2005 - 11:17:28 EDT