actually the changelog [1] doesn't show that many other new/fixed parts. regards, gerhard
http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/2/14 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > I think we should continue the vote. > We can still discuss how to treat logging in the future for the next > release. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Mon, 2/14/11, Gerhard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Gerhard <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Bean Validation 0.3-incubating > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 8:15 PM > > hi kevan, > > > > see the objections mentioned by mark. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > 2011/2/14 Kevan Miller <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 2:15 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > > > There have been objections. Mainly that a small > > lib like bval shouldnt > > > bring its own log layer along. java.util.logging is > > not as good as other > > > logging frameworks, but it doesn't force the user into > > just another logging > > > framework deathmatch... > > > > > > > > And as tooling for jul gets better from year to > > year, there is hardly a > > > technical argument why one should not use it today. > > > > > > I scanned the list. Can't say that I found what I > > would call "objections". > > > Seemed more like ambivalence. Anyway, if there are > > objections, let's get > > > them resolved. If there aren't, then let's move the > > vote along. > > > > > > --kevan > > > > > >
