Simon Kitching wrote: > ---- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> I agree here, but also with Luc's point above about logging not being >> part of the API contract. So the problem is how do you support the >> use case above and one more: configurable debug/trace information. I >> don't want to hijack this thread, but these two use cases are what >> has led me to look at adding logging to [dbcp] and [pool] and I am >> currently stuck on how to do it. > > Perhaps one possibility would be to have the code contain a > call to an empty log method. Then when logging is desired, > use runtime code-weaving (AOP) to intercept calls to that > method and replace them with real logging calls.
I cannot understand this complete fuss about commons-logging. With 1.1.1 we addressed all known issues and even if someone does not want to use it, he can use slf4j, which ships with a compatible API. So, why on earth should we not eat our own dog food? - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
