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.
Abstraction and choice are good things.
To me this appears to be an example of where integration with other projects/frameworks would be preferred. In this case I would say: why did you not start out using Jakarta Commons Logging (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/) instead of building your own abstraction layer?
Or am I missing a point :)
Regards. _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
