Even though the release is delayed on Fortress, would you suggest it for use in the development version of Turbine 2.3?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:35 AM > To: Avalon framework users > Subject: Re: Help with logging > > > > Leo Simons wrote: > > Quinton McCombs wrote: > > > >> I see. What would you suggest for as a container solution for > >> Turbine to be able to load Avalon components? Although we use > >> commons-logging for our logging, it is using log4j as the actual > >> logging solution. This is why I need to be able to use log4j. > > > > Ah, I see too :D > > > > Still, I'm a bit reluctant to do an intermediate ECM > release, as it is > > not our future, and we'll be recommending upgrading to > fortess later. > > My 2cents here. > > Since we are heading towards a single Avalon container, and > will thus release the containers as subsequent releases of > the "Avalon Container", and since Fortress is the successor > to ECM, and since Cocoon just /could/ migrate to Fortress as > an ECM upgrade, and since Cocoon would > then be able to use Fulcrum services... I would suggest Fortress. > > Yes, the release is delayed, not, it's not bugs that delay us. > > I'm thinking only about the Avalon container space. Can't > comment about > Plexus, not having seen it. > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:avalon-users-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
