Johannes Verelst wrote: > > Adding it means that we will need to support it, and frankly I don't > see a reason to move away from log4j. Its pretty powerful and I don't > see added value to adding the java logging API.
I did not propose to move away from log4j. > For a good rant about why not to use abstraction over abstraction, see > http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/?anchor=the_apache_syndrome (in this > case, specifically the 2nd entry). We have an abstraction layer for logging already. Perhaps that was a silly ideay, but I don't propose, nor propose to remove it. I just propose to offer the possibility to use it. And also the other way araound, to use the mmbase logging structure by the java.util.logging.Logger class, which I needed. Both classes are extremely straigh forward wrapping classes, and I can easily promise to maintain them too. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
