> I thought one reason for the current names is that they match the > log4j tool and all the other language's versions of that tool. I'd > like to see the package keep the standard names to make it easier for > someone to pick up this package. I think the main source of familiarity for log4j users (or java.util.logging) will be that the"main" design and classes in the package mirror those in the Java world - Loggers and Handlers, dotted-namespace hierarchy for loggers, etc. I don't think that having slightly different names would be a problem, given that we think our names are better! Several versions of log4j (e.g. log4p, log4net) seem to have been a little too faithful in their translation of log4j. For example, levels are first-class objects - which I think is overkill. But then, class proliferation seems to be a Java idiom in some quarters :-( Regards, Vinay
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4