commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject RE: [logging] DON_QUIXOTE branch
Date Sat, 02 Apr 2005 11:34:54 GMT
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 00:47 +0100, Andy McBride wrote:
> This is good to see, anything which leads towards a more predictable
> behaviour for CL is great.  
> I would personally prefer the static binding approach over byte code
> manipulation as a more deterministic approach.  

both kinds of static binding (byte code and compiled) are equally
deterministic. both make it easy to predict which logging system will be
used. there are a number of advantages that byte code manipulation
offers including direct access to the logging system (for people like
simon who worry about performance) and the ability to dope particular
libraries to log to particular systems. compiled static is easier to
understand and explain, though.

note that dynamic binding is also deterministic: it's just that a lot
more knowledge is required to determine the behaviour in a given

the main advantage of dynamic binding is that can (potentially) function
in situations where static binding cannot. the same shared library can
also log to different log systems depending on context. for more
details, see the analysis code in SVN.

IMHO the best approach would be to allow a choice of approaches.

> I'm curious at to your choice of 'Don Quixote' as a branch name, please,
> please put me out of my misery and explain what the reference means! :-)  

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message