agree, but this is not the goal of Tamaya afaik. We are no logger framework project ;)
This will be dealt with in the integration code. Parts we simply don't know yet. LieGrue, strub > On Saturday, 3 January 2015, 23:28, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
