Re: Other anticipated changes for 0.8.5, Part 2 Brian Marick (marick@rstcorp.com)
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, http://www.rstcorp.com
Testing essays and FAQs at http://www.rstcorp.com/marick/
Technical Editor of Software Testing and Quality Engineering, 
http://www.stqemagazine.com

"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.