THAT is exactly my point. Thanks Scott, Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:34 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > It doesn't change whether it is a good idea or not. It does change > whether others think that commons is just another duplication or a team > player in the whole scheme of things. > > I *want* to be a team player, and I want everyone on the team. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Waldhoff, Rodney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:37 PM > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > > > > I haven't been following the recent logging discussions or > > changes, but for the record I can tell you that any > > similarity between the original commons-logging source > > (essentially as it still stands in > > commons-httpclient) and anything in Avalon is purely coincidental. > > > > If anything, commons-logging starts with Log4J, and my > > interest in using it with httpclient > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > g/msg02682.htm > l), to which some complained, leading to the suggestion to abstract away > the dependencies > (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02690 > .htm > l and > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02803. > html > ). > > But this whole discussion seems like a non-starter. Wanna credit Avalon > or Log4J or JSR 47(?) or whatever, feel free. Credit everyone, why's > that change whether or not commons-logging is a good idea? > > - Rod > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[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]>
