+1 for removing static, +1 for using java.util.logging. I'm also somewhat against using commons logging; what real benefit would it afford us ?
On 2/27/07, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
good point if you can hook commons.logging (I know this is somewhat insane because commons is just a meta logger) below it, I do not know the core java logging api good enough but every dependency we can remove is a + from me. Problem is if we cannot provide a path to hook commons logging into it we get a huge clash with application and server vendors which build upon that lib. Mathias Brökelmann schrieb: > +1 for removing the static. > > What is about java.util.logging? Can/Should we use it for 1.2? > > IMO it is better to use java.util.logging. Apart from the unusable > default implementation for java.util.logging the reason not to use it > in myfaces 1.1 was the dependency to java 1.4. But jsf 1.2 will only > run with java 5 or higher. So that should not be the problem now. The > default implementation should also not be a problem. IMO it is out of > scope of myfaces. The container vendor is responsible to supply a > better solution as it is done for tomcat. And even if that is not the > case the user might plug its own implementation into > java.util.logging. > > 2007/2/27, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin. >> >> Dennis Byrne
-- Grant Smith
