on 5/9/01 8:13 PM, "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> on 5/9/01 7:56 PM, "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Why? >>> Why do you care what toolkit Ant uses to do the logging? >> >> Simply put: >> >> I want choice. > > Choice for choice's sake doesn't make much sense to me. > It's just the colour of the bike shed.
It makes sense from the point of view that if you don't believe in the long term maintainability of LogKit (@see deprecation issues) or the fact that it only has one active developer and zero community and compared with Log4J which has quite a lot more support... > If either of the logging kits offers real differences for the end user, then > can someone please post them, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument > on that point from anyone. Yup. > If there's no end user difference, then Ant should use the one that simplest > for the developer. Both are simple. Both offer the same features. If anything one should go away and they should be combined. > But does it do everything that we need? > (Honest question) I think so. But I'm biased, I only have two perfectly working systems implementing this approach. -jon -- If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take your pain to new levels. --Anonymous <http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ymtd/ymtd.html>
