> -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:43 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > Scott Sanders wrote: > > > >> Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although the > >> abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do believe that > >> Avalon should be attributed in some way, because it ended > up being so > >> close. > >> > >> What can we do to make this better? The biggest difference that I > >> see is that commons-logging is trying to be super small. > I want to > >> talk this out before I give my +1 on the release. I am willing to > >> try and make this better. > >> > >> I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from. > > > > > > > > I want it documented in the javadocs and/or other > documentation where > > the design > > for this originated, and author attributes for the original > authors of the > > Logger abstraction. > > > > The fact that this is outside of Avalon is beside the > point. However, > > you should > > attribute the original source that influenced its design. > > > Secondly, since we are so similar, the JDK 1.4 logger > category mappings should > be syncronized (the only difference is that commons logging > is FINEST for debug > and avalon is FINE for debug). > > That way there is nothing that changes between the > abstraction that you decide > to use.
Good suggestion. I will update ours. Unless there is a reason not to, which I do not see. Scott > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety." > - Benjamin Franklin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [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]>
