Peter wrote: >On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:32, Richard Sitze wrote: >> I want a common interface that is *implemented* (as in Java 'class MyLogger >> implements commonLogger') by both the LogKit Logger and the Log4J >> Category/Logger classes. > >not a chance in hell as there is no advantage. LogKit and Log4j will not be >around in a few years when JDK logging is established. Theres no real point >in changing APIs now if only going to get dropped in future.
OK, great. So why do I want to use your framework as a basis and adapter your logger API? Rather, that leads me to think that I should be considering your framework with a different logging API. More work to bring AXIS around, but hey, not a bad idea. Also, I don't have to worry about getting you guys to migrate. :-) Seriously, you have a good point. > >> Yes, as wrappers. One of the major hangups we keep stumbling into is that >> we end up with wrappers of wrappers of wrappers... > >errr ... we have one wrapper.. whats the problem with that? I'm a performance biggot, OK? Berin's point that this gets optimized out is a good one. Something to think about.. > >> I agree. Once we have a simple interface there are many obvious >> extensions... but I want to address the core problem first. In light of >> your example I would not be adverse to a 'getName()' method in the common >> interface... > >getName violates IOC. No need to have that in there. You and Berin get your story straight on this, I'm happy to go along for the ride. > >-- >Cheers, > >Pete > >"abandon all hope , ye who enter here" - dante, inferno ouch, it's hot in here :-) <ras> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
