[slf4j-dev] Comments on scala-api

[Heiko Seeberger]

Ceki,

I think you are right: There seems to be no need for an abstract Logger
(trait or abstract class) and a default implementation. Better have a single
concrete Logger class wrapping a SLF4JLogger instance.

How shall we proceed? Wait some time and do the change then? Change it
immediately?

Heiko

On 1 November 2010 22:28, Ceki Gülcü <ceki at qos.ch> wrote:

>
> Hello Heiko,
>
> Looking at logger.scala, I was wondering why the Logger trait was a trait
> and not a class. I understand that as a trait any class can mixin Logger and
> methods such as debug(), info() would be available in that class. However,
> there is already a trait caller Logging which allows the mixing class to
> write logger.debug("...").
>
> It seems to me that the Logging trait is sufficient in most cases. I would
> like to propose to make Logger a class instead of a Trait and to get rid of
> DefaultLogger. This would make the code a little simpler without loss of
> "desired" flexibility. I don't think we should allow classes to write just
> debug("...") or should we?
>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> Ceki
> _______________________________________________
> slf4j-dev mailing list
> slf4j-dev at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-dev
>



-- 
Heiko Seeberger

Company: weiglewilczek.com
Blog: heikoseeberger.name
Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger
OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org
Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net
Akka - Simpler Scalability, Fault-Tolerance, Concurrency & Remoting through
Actors: akkasource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://qos.ch/pipermail/slf4j-dev/attachments/20101102/870e1d42/attachment.html>