> -----Original Message----- > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:22:09 +0200, Anders Steinlein > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Although I have no real saying in this, I am +1 on J2SE 5.0 > > as well. As I would anticipate 1-2 years in development on > > Struts 2.x, J2SE 5.0 should be widely deployed by then. If > > not, then our "endorsement" of it could encourage people to > > make the switch. ;) Plus, it could stand as a marketing bonus > > - in support of our "revolutionary" path. > > I sure hope it doesn't take us 1-2 years, but with our track > record I'd be pretty foolish to make any promises at this point :-).
I sure doesn't hope so either. Besides, I suspect more people would like to volunteer on a 2.x release to scratch some revolutionary itches and/or understanding the framework from the beginning (myself included), which could help speed things up. :) > > Quick questions regarding Commons Logging proposal: > > > > Letting people choose their logging implementation is not a > > bad idea, but I've been hearing negative things about Commons > > Logging in its ability to detect the correct implementation > > to use. Something about classpath problems, if I remember > > correctly? Are these issues solved? > > 99.9% of the issue is configuration -- getting the right JARs > and configuration files in the right place. In that sense > its not really different than any other JAR that might be > included in the webapp or installed in the container. You > just need to get all the moving parts where they belong. And > use C-L 1.0.4 or later, of course, because there were some > critical bugfixes. Ah, that explains it. Thanks for clearing this up for me. > Struts 1.x has used C-L from the very beginning of its > existence, and we've been satisfied with it. > > > Again, this is > > just little me's two cents, but I am in favor of minimizing third > > party dependencies as much as possible, and I don't see very much > > reason not to use the JDK 1.4 implementation. Anyone? > > There are a lot of potential customers that have existing > environments based on things like Log4J, and those folks > would be really (and justifiably) irritated to be required > to configure two logging systems. Indeed good and valid points - I'm sold. > Craig \Anders --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
