At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >>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.
Your allusion to Microsoft is interesting as much as it is troubling. For some reason everybody here takes the development of good software for granted. It takes a lot of energy and time. We waste much of it bickering among ourselves. Initially I was very saddened by this but now have grown accustomed to it. I do not expect to change anyones's mind. I am pretty sick of the politics and have much work to do. -- Ceki My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
