Re: commons-configuration and commons-logging

[Neeme Praks]

Others have already pointed out that there are substantial differences 
between avalon-configuration and commons-configuration. When it comes to 
logging API, there are _almost_ no differences. But there is this 
_almost_... there is a difference of one method and that is a key point 
in managed environments like Avalon: the lack of 
Log.getChildLogger(String) in commons-logging.

For longer story, check out this email:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg40205.html
This proposal never took off, so don't hold your breath for this to 
happen any time soon. Although it could help if you would raise this 
issue once more in commons-dev list ;-)

Rgds,
Neeme
J�rg Hohwiller wrote:
Hi there,
I am new to this list but have been using avalon + ECM in a project before and
plan to use avalon + merlin for my current open-source project.
I can see there is commons-configuration (which seems as it came from avalon) 
and commons-logging. I saw in the archive that there was a discussion about 
logkit vs. commons-logging + log4j before.
I would like to know if you are planning to directly use c-configuration and 
c-logging in the avalon framework API?
I personally think the commons initiative is a great thing and I can still 
remember myself digging deep in apache projects sources to find a ready to 
use cache, pool or whatever implementation.
Now why not just using these APIs as part of the avalon API?
I can see that changing an API this way in general is a bad thing because
of loosing downward compatibility but on the other hand it is not a bid thing 
to replace org.apache.avalon.framework.configuration to 
org.apache.commons.configuration and org.apache.avalon.framework.logger
to org.apache.commons.logging (okay the last one is not just a string 
replace).

Instead one could use adaptors that do the thing (I think there is one 
available for configuration) but now if you want to use a specific or own 
implementation of lets say c-configuration that also allows changing parts of 
the configuration, etc. you can not access those features across such an 
adaptor if its not part of the official API.

So all I am suggesting is think about it.
Disscussions welcome...
Take care
J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]