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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 13 2005 - 11:05:40 EDT