"Andrew Evers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew, Daniel, pay attention: > > > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > >Why not just provide a trivially simple two-class JAR file that defines > > >org.apache.commons.logging.Log and org.apache.commons.logging.LogFactory > > >with exactly the same public APIs as the "real" ones? Then, just ship > > >this tiny little JAR file with apps (or applets) that don't want to use > > >commons-logging. The resulting JAR file is going to be pretty much the > > >same size as something containing SafeCommonsLogger anyway. > > > > > >As long as your replacement classes maintain binary compatibility > > >with > the standard ones, any code that currently thinks it is > > >using commons-logging will be transparently using your own > > >version instead. > > > > > What do you think of this scenario? > > This sounds fine. We would always need a dependency on the Log > interface (and probably LogFactory) at compile and runtime. This > solution means we don't need a runtime dependency on a large JAR > file, we can simply package these two classes in with the applet > JAR.
Yeah, that sounds just dandy. Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for taking care of this. -- Daniel Rall
