> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Leo Simons
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> >> Leo, can we take this off the docket for now?
> >
> > yep. Will do.
>
> PS: vote dropped. Will revisited after release. vetoing my
> own proposal, in fact :D
Yep, that seems sensible.
Personally I'm fine with having the utility class in framework,
but I'm sceptical about commons logging for two reasons:
1. The whole thing is tied to classloaders and their
hierarchy. Given what the people at JBoss are experimenting
with (replacing the CL tree with a lattice) I think this is
*begging* for trouble.
2. I agree with Paul Hammant that logging at the level of
reusable beans is overkill - what if Java had been written
that way, with logging in String and StringBuffer?
One could argue that we, as a framework, should support as much
as possible, and therefore I'm fine with the utility class. But
I'm strongly against a *dependency* on commons-logging, as
opposed to merely supporting it (as we do with Log4J).
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
