Yes, I am meaning this very small logging wrapper that Simon wrote. I don't see any problem in relying on this.
How did Ed argue that additional dependencies would make you loose spec-compliancy? Is it put down somewhere in the spec? Can you post a short summary of your discussion? regards, Martin On 12/15/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The possibility to be without the dependency is only important if we > want to stay spec-compliant. > > A discussion with Ed Burns (on the chat) showed that requiring > additional > dependencies makes you loose that compliancy, if it were judged in a > restricitve way. BUT he indicated that such a logger-dependency is not > a very critical issue... > > Therefor: Cool to give a deployer the possibility to remove the > dependency > while giving the myfaces-developers the possibility to log... > > regards > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:05 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Loggers in API Components > > 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 > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
