> Ok, I am having trouble explaining myself (partially cause I planned this
> feature after 1.2 so I haven't explored all the options yet). I am not
It could also be me having trouble understanding you - same stick,
different end. :)
> concerned if we use Jakarta commons-logging in the backend. However the
> goal of this effort is to avoid any explicit dependencies in the API (i.e.
> in the method signatures) on either commons-logging or Log4J..
OK now I understand. Well, I disagree but that's another problem. ;-)
I just checked my 3-minutes-brainstorming Level abstraction into my
sandbox, feel free to use it as inspiration. In its current form (more or
less) it could function as replacement for the log4j Level references in
e.g. QueryLogger.
Holger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 13 2005 - 12:39:08 EDT