On 20.01.2006, at 12:02, Simon Kitching wrote:
Re the proposed "minimal" jarfile: What exactly are the differences between this and the existing commons-logging-api jarfile?
Basically the implementations. It would be nice if you could satisfy the commons-logging dependency by just having the API jar in the classpath. But this also means no implementations and no configuration. Basically it should not log at all.
As far as I can see, commons-logging-api.jar has the Jdk14Logger class in it, but otherwise is dependency-free.
It's not the dependency that is the point. Let's take drools as an example. They don't really want to use JCL but they want to use jci. Now jci uses JCL. But they don't really care about the jci logging. And even more important they don't want to tinker with a JCL configuration. Basically they want the logging to be removed or being a NOP operation in libraries. Basically that was the idea for the minimal JCL. You use the minimal one. In case you need the logging you can replace it with the full one and configure JCL.
org/apache/commons/logging/impl/ org/apache/commons/logging/impl/Jdk14Logger.class org/apache/commons/logging/impl/LogFactoryImpl$1.class org/apache/commons/logging/impl/LogFactoryImpl.class org/apache/commons/logging/impl/NoOpLog.class org/apache/commons/logging/impl/SimpleLog$1.class org/apache/commons/logging/impl/SimpleLog.class
Why? ...it's meant to be an API jar!?
Can't we just make those changes to the api jar?
Sure, I would prefer to fix the API jar. cheers -- Torsten
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
