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...
Andrus
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> Well, I'd actually like to understand what you have in mind first. I
>> agree
>
> Not much yet. First start by converting the classes that don't use Level
> to regular commons-logging. That is painless, just search&replace and it
> doesn't change anything. It's just to get started.
>
>> Maybe our own "commons logging" interface that has its own levels that
>> can be referenced throughout Cayenne API. And then include a default
>> Log4J implementation mapping these levels to Log4J?
>
> Yes, something like that. commons-logging allows to get a reference to
> the configured LogFactory and I also think there's a property that can
> be queried or set for configuration. Hmm..tricky because you don't want
> to refer to these classes in code.
>
> I'll look at UGLI (nice name ;) immediately, thanks for pointing that
> out Mike. Had seen it before but forgotten about it..
>
> -h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 13 2005 - 10:22:08 EDT