Re: Other anticipated changes for 0.8.5, Part 2 Brian Marick (
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:49:40 -0500

At 01:06 PM 10/26/99 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
>You got my drift exactly. I, perhaps, misunderstood the history. I thought
>we were deprecating the definition of Trace objects by classes outside the
>trace subsystem. I thought non-legacy code was supposed to instead use only
>Trace objects exported by the trace subsystem.
>>I'm on the road, so I can't look at the code right now. But I think that's
>>how it worked.
>That is how the code works. Both styles are fully supported. The question
>is one of intent. If you didn't intend to deprecate decentralized
>Trace-object definition, then I evolved the code towards the wrong
>consistency. Instead, as I think I prefer anyway, we should migrate each
>Trace-object definitions that is not *about* the trace subsystem into the
>subsystem it is about.

I didn't intend to deprecate decentralized Trace object definition. I think I'd prefer Trace objects to be defined in the subsystems that use them. They were only centrally defined to encourage people to move from class-specific Trace objects to subsystem-specific Trace objects.

Brian Marick, Reliable Software Technologies,
Testing essays and FAQs at
Technical Editor of Software Testing and Quality Engineering,

"Let every student of nature take this as his rule, that whatever the mind
seizes upon with particular satisfaction is to be held in suspicion." 
-- Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620.