How is j.u.logging overkill, especially considering using it would mean one less dependency? From our standpoint, the only thing we care about is Logger anyway.
Bob On 8/22/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd rather use java.util.logging than commons-logging, but I think both are overkill for a library. I think Nathan is spot on and we should look to using Velocity's logging classes, imported into our codebase. The whole logging "framework" we'd need would be like two or three classes. Jarjar would also be nice, perhaps in conjunction with Velocity's logging classes. It would help us solve the xwork version problem nicely. Don Bob Lee wrote: > On 8/22/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Say, wasn't there a mention of some package that renamed packages >> dynamically or something? That's the real issue. Two versions of the >> same package name on the same classpath. > > > jarjar > > In the case of logging though, we should just use java.util.logging. > > If you still want to use log4j, why not write a j.u.logging Handler which > logs to log4j? Do we really need an API to decouple us from an API which > decouples us from a logging implementation, or is one level of > indirection > sufficient? This is why everyone makes fun of clogging. > > Bob > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
