On 12/6/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it really ok for stuff in the "api" and "impl" subdirs to depend on > commons-logging?
AFAIK, yes. Certainly for "impl", and I see no reason why not as well for "api", as long as it doesn't actually show up in the public/protected API. > Does the spec say anything about dependency requirements for the JSF > implementation? In particular, I'm concerned that j2ee.jar will > apparently require a JSF implementation to be included in the future; if > MyFaces is that implementation and it uses org.apache.* libs then those > libs must also be bundled in the j2ee.jar file, or be bundled by every > container that provides that j2ee file. And exposing libraries via the > container like that can cause pain, as we all found out when a buggy > version of org.apache.xerces was bundled with java 1.4 :-( JSF 1.2 requires J2SE 5.0 (both annotations and generics). And, yeah, any full J2EE webtier server in EE 5.0 will necessary include a JSF implementation - so, for instance, any Java EE 5.0 version of Tomcat must include a JSF implementation. JSF 1.1, well, in theory it would require JDK 1.3 at a minimum - though there's no specific reason why any particular implementation couldn't decide to make 1.4 the minimum. (And I can't specifically remember an API reason why it couldn't run on JDK 1.2 as well.) But as far as logging goes, if you're willing to take JDK 1.4 as a requirement (and I can't see why not), I find commons-logging a rather pointless bonus dependency - log4j is not sufficiently better than java.util.logging to justify its use, and if you're only ever going to use java.util.logging, what's the point of going through an intermediary? Total agreement with Travis that logging in the components is a very good thing. Cheers, Adam
