> god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before > commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging? I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projects use this common-logging package? What's the advantage of having a common logging package if it's not widely used even within the Jakarta community? One solution: all Jakarta projects must support both LogKit and Log4J (as they are both part of the family) by using commons-logging if they want to (but as logging is not the core business of many Jakarta projects, using the common-logging package makes sense). Another solution : drop one logger (don't shoot me!) and stand beside the winner. Users willing to use Jakarta projects will *have* to use the Jakarta logger. Sound M$-ish, doesn't it? Last solution : everyone stands where they are: pro-choice vs. pro-one-logger. -Vladimir -- Vladimir Bossicard www.bossicard.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
