Re: [architecture] wrapper APIs

[Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel.Cecchet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vadim,

> On Monday 21 June 2004 12:41, Sebastien Chassande-Barrioz wrote:
>  
>
> > My opinion is to always use API's like monolog.
> >    
>
> Standard wrapper APIs are great.  There are so many to choose from!
>
> Seriously though, there was a very thoughtful post by Jeff Mesnil on
> this list over a year ago, to which no one cared to follow up, it
> seems:
> http://mail-archive.objectweb.org/architecture/2003-02/msg00015.html
>
>  
It is not really that nobody cared about this post, but I think that no 
real consensus was ever reached on this topic after many discussions.
I personnally do think that Monolog is too much of an effort to maintain 
with regard to its visibility and acceptation. At the time this project 
was started, I think the motivations where good and this project was 
really worth it. Howver, now going for commons-logging would certainly 
makes more sense to me but once again, every project is free to choose 
the technologies he wants.
When you have to deal with large code bases, it is always a resource 
consuming task to switch the whole logging environment. However, I think 
that Jeff's analysis is always valid.
To the extreme, we could also say that finally log4j is becoming the 
defacto standard and why would we need a wrapper for it?

My 2 cents,
Emmanuel

--
Emmanuel Cecchet

INRIA Research Scientist   | Chief Architect
SARDES Project             | ObjectWeb Consortium
http://sardes.inrialpes.fr | http://www.objectweb.org

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature