Yeah and confirm but nthg opposed to have JUL integration with other frameworks...
To be honest id like to have it in a common jar at apache. At least 3 or 4 apache projects forked them and much more could benefit from it (factory + delegate logger impls) Le 3 janv. 2015 23:25, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Romain, please see the mail from today in the morning with the topic > > '[DISCUSS] logging in core' > That was way before I committed and pushed it. > > You even gave your +1 ;) > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > On Saturday, 3 January 2015, 23:04, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I didnt say i like it just it doesnt add any mandatory dep and solves a > > need. Issue with it is the same as what you did: no discussion - was > surely > > too early. > > > > Le 3 janv. 2015 22:54, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > >> Romain, explain me why you like the logging stuff? It introduces > >> dependencies to 3 other libs without adding anything. jul is totally > enough > >> as everyone can route it to any other logging framework himself very > > easily. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Saturday, 3 January 2015, 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > We didnt discuss it so +1 for removal - btw you removed legal > > code as > >> well > >> > (logging stuff) > >> > > >> > Le 3 janv. 2015 22:32, "Werner Keil" > > <[email protected]> a > >> > écrit : > >> > > >> >> It's hard do judge by files that were already removed, > > what's the > >> > evidence > >> >> they should be from Spring? > >> >> > >> >> If the effort can be overseen rather easily, I think I'm fine > > with > >> >> +1 for B > >> >> but in future cases I really would like to know and learn why > > such > >> files > >> >> are an issue and which of them. > >> >> > >> >> Werner > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Reinhard Sandtner < > >> >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > +1 for B > >> >> > > >> >> > keep it simple ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > lg > >> >> > reini > >> >> > > >> >> > > Am 03.01.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Mark Struberg > >> > <[email protected]>: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > As you might have read in the previous mail I did > > remove some > >> > code > >> >> which > >> >> > has no clean IP provenance. The code seems to have been > > taken from > >> the > >> >> > Spring project. Although it is ALv2 and so the license is > > fine we > >> > still > >> >> > don't own the copyright and there was no IP check done > > for this > >> > code. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > This all would be resolvable by going into the Spring > > SCM > >> > history, > >> >> check > >> >> > who wrote the code parts and patches, make sure it was not > > e.g. taken > >> >> from > >> >> > a GPL source, etc. After that we would need to ask Spring > > for a code > >> >> grant. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > All this is doable but a certain amount of work. And > > thus I > >> > really > >> >> > suggest to do this only if we really need that code. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 1.) do we really need those code parts? Do we need most > > of the > >> >> > spring-ant integration? What for? > >> >> > > 2.) Wouldn't it be easier to write the > > functionality > >> > ourselves and be > >> >> > able to only implement the pieces we really need? Currently > > all we > >> > need > >> >> is > >> >> > ClassLoader.getResources() and be done. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thus please VOTE on > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > A.) Go through the IP clearing and try to get the > > rights for the > >> > Spring > >> >> > code > >> >> > > > >> >> > > B.) Simply write those pieces ourselves. It's no > > rocket > >> > science, > >> >> really! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > +1 for B from me. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > LieGrue, > >> >> > > strub > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
