Berin Loritsch wrote, On 18/06/2003 15.09:
I had an encouraging chat with the Log4J folks (Ceki in particular), and we have some good news from the logger front.
At the time I was chair, I had started the talks with Ceki, and they had been equally promising. Since then, I have followed the log4j and j-c list, and followed development.
I have seen even more promising discussions on the jakarta commons list, where Ceki in particular IIRC was fully aware of the problems that J-C logging brings, and of the IOC pattern usage.
They have talked about a logging.apache.org, and I said "why not have logkit there too"? But then they replied, why logkit at all?
So, to summarize, they are very interested in cooperating, and concretely working on it.
So yes, these are excellent news indeed.
...
I believe the best course of action is to continue to support LogKit until Log4J 2.0 is released.
Feature freeze I suppose...
However, in the mean time we should start putting together stronger support for Log4J in the Avalon containers. Many of our users will most likely be more willing to work with Log4J, and it will be one less issue to worry about.
Excellent. But from what I see in your post, there is no real thing that 1.3 will not have is the Logger.getLogger() issue "solved".
Question: how blocking is this WRT our immediate move to log4j 1.3?
I would also like us to help make Log4J 2.0 a reality. If there are any volunteers who want to help in that direction, please subscribe to the Log4J list.
-- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
