logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [POLL] Component and ComponentBase
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:39:43 GMT

On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:

> Hi,
> I don't think it's a bad idea, but could there be a more specific or
> domain-related name for it?  Component(Base) is very generic, whereas
> Appender(Skeleton) is more logging-domain-specific.
>
> Yoav
>
> --- Ceki Gülcü <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
>

The only method on o.a.l.spi.Component is setLoggerRepository.  I 
assume the motivation is to inform "components" of which 
LoggerRepository they belong after their construction.  I haven't 
looked at the problem. but my preference would be to modify the 
respective constructors to take either a LoggerRepository (assuming 
that it would be known at construction time) or something like a 
LoggerRepositoryLocator which could be used to locate the repository at 
a later time.  Changing the constructors would force propagation of the 
LoggerRepository.  The setLoggerRepository approach leaves the 
potential to forget to set the repository.

Could you describe the items that should be aware of the 
LoggerRepository?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message