On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:06:41PM +0100, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Paul Sandoz wrote:
> >>:D I see others
> >>have mentioned that in the archives, and I see the response. I have
> >>the source... so I am free to do so if I wish aye? ;)
> >>
> >
> >Happy to accept a patch :-)
> >
> >One thing that annoys me about logging code is that it "pollutes" the
> >logic of the code. So i was thinking about how we may support such
> >logging in a manner that does not "pollute". Two possible alternative
> >solutions to direct logging could be:
> >
> >1) Use DTrace providers. Unfortunately that won't work on Windows and
> > some Linux distros. But it would be my favorite approach to
> > investigate.
> >
> >2) Provide logging specific UrlRule and UrlRules adapters that
> > performing logging and defer to the under the underlying
> > implementations. I am not sure if this will provide the degree of
> > logging granularity required.
> >
>
> Jakub, in your opinion do you think 2 is viable or would we require
> amore granular logging support, and/or should we just keep things
> 'simpler' in the technical sense and put the logging code directly in
> the relevant source.
i would prefer putting the loging code directly
in the relevant source. The reason would not be granularity
but "simplicity". But it is just my personal opinion.
~Jakub
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> | ? + ? = To question
> ----------------\
> Paul Sandoz
> x38109
> +33-4-76188109
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>
--
Jakub Podlesak
http://blogs.sun.com/japod