I still think it is OK to depend on another jar from the jsf-api.jar. Adam Winer has already stated that he would think so, too. Any objections?
regards, Martin On 12/15/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mario > > I think it is because in this way (having this logger-abstraction in the > myfaces-jars) > it is possible to eliminate the runtime-dependency on commons-logging in > an > easier way. > > If, as deployer, I do not want commons-logging in the container, at most > I > write two dummy-classes which replace Simons classes. And that's it... > > Therefor: great work Simon > > regards > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:53 AM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Loggers in API Components > > Hi Simon! > > Why wouldnt you create this wrapper library under the umbrella of > commns-logging? > Different commons-logging libraries using static linking instead of the > dynamic behaviour. > Say: commons-logging-log4j, commons-logging-jdklogger > > That way we still can use the well known LogFactory and every other > project will benifit from this too. > One can replace the logging implementation used just by replacing the > jar. > > I think it isnt that a good idea if every project comes with its own > wrapper library. In the worst case this will double the number of > libraries used - even more logging hassle. > > just my 2ct. > > Mario > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
