--- Richard Sitze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/16/2004 11:47:46
> AM:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > >
> > > The current proposal is:
> > >
> > > - configuration is always manditory.
> >
> > Doesn't mandatory configuration relieve us from needing to split
> > commons-logging.jar into several pieces? I like the fact that I don't
> > have to manage multiple commons-logging jar files and will be rather
> > dissapointed if that is required in the future. I wouldn't mind
> having
> a
> > simple properties file or a system property like
> > -Dorg.apache.commons.logging.impl=log4j that tells commons-logging to
> use
> > log4j.
>
> ok, without going back to review exactly what I said in an earlier note,
> I
> had in mind something like:
>
> commons-logging-core.jar - core interface & factory class, NO config
> commons-logging.jar - core + all helpers, NO config
> commons-logging-<impl>.jar - core + ONE helper, ONE config
>
> With this scheme, I believe we can scrub the code from LogFactory that
> looks for an attempts to load specific logger impls [Log4J, Avalon, ?],
> and instead depend entirely on the config.
So the configuration file is inside each impl. jar? What are you
picturing the configuration will look like? I figured it would just be a
simple declaration that you're using Log4J, java.util.logging, etc. If it
is indeed that simple then I don't understand why we would need separate
jars. We could keep the single commons-logging.jar but just use the
application supplied configuration instead of relying on the LogFactory
lookup code.
David
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
