On Apr 12, 2:46 pm, ataggart <alexclojuregr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Providing a mechanism which is simple, and does what one expects (an > open question) consistently across different backing implementations > is not as easy as it may seem.
Ideally, we can just cover the common base case, and expose machinery for the user to configure any non-standard situations as required. I imagine 80% of the time the logging library is used, the user is not going to be setting up any logging hierarchies of any kind. There should be a simple function that sets all logging levels to the given level to cover that 80% base case. People who need something more elaborate are going to be doing a lot of customization anyway... we don't need to cover every possible case, just the most common ones. The "multiple backeds" problem is indeed pretty annoying. The Clojure- level library would have to know about each and every backend and all its quirks to be able to do the right thing in every case... but isn't that the whole point of the abstraction layer? Where do we start? Are some backends more common than others? Best, Paul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
