I want to understand what niche JULI is filling here. It extends the jdk
logging but uses log4j classes and implements JCL and SLF4J interfaces? Why
would I want to use this instead of log4j or the jdk libraries?
My mind is open, but it lacks information and background here.
WRT specifics about incubator, etc...I think that the above should be
addressed first, then we can look at full subproject vs sandbox, etc. To be
a full subproject there would need to be a community built up around it and
it would probably need to go through incubator (as part of that process).
If the effort is warranted and there is interest, then we can look at it.
But we need to understand it all first.
thanks,
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoav Shapira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Logging General" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: JULI proposal
Hi,
Besides agreeding with Curt's concerns, this seems unnecessary. Why do
it?
Introducing yet another set of names, interfaces, classes is unlikely to
be
well-received...
Yoav
--- Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is in regards to recently filed bug 36805 (http://
issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36805). If there has been
any previous discussion, I have missed it.
All this information may be in attachments to the bug, but it would
be helpful to me if you provide some essential background information.
What is the source of the initial submission? Do you have clear
rights to donate the code to Apache Software Foundation? Do you have
a Contributor's License Agreement (http://www.apache.org/licenses) on
file?
Do you think that the code would need to go through the Incubator
(http://incubator.apache.org)
How does this relate to GNU Classpath (http://www.gnu.org/software/
classpath/) which provides independent clean-room implementations of
core class libraries and appears to implement java.util.logging? The
GNU Classpath implementations take great care avoid potential legal
issues (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq3_2)
that we don't encounter.
How would conflicts between the JDK provided implementation of
java.util.logging and JULI be resolved?
SLF4J is not an Apache project and having an Apache product depend on
a non-ASF project is undesirable. What is the nature of the
dependency on SLF4J?
Is JULI an acronym? If so, what is the full name?
My initial reaction is that there are too many legal and licensing
issues to justify the project in light of only vague outlined benefits.
