Surely JCL is not actually a logging implementation; the underlying logger is chosen independently.
So does it matter to the "clients" if HttpComponents continues to use JCL? See also: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Commons_Logging_FUD == So long as HttpComponents is compatible with as many of its clients as possible, it seems to me that you should choose whatever logging system is the most convenient for the project. S/// On 17/03/07, Michael Becke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regarding JCL I wonder if a lack of active development is an issue for us. As Simon states in his email there are no known bugs and no outstanding feature requests. JCL is basically done. I'm guessing it will still be supported where necessary, but not much support is necessary for a project with no bugs and no plans for future development. The bigger question is the one that Odi brings up I think. What are our "clients" going to use? If consumers of HttpClient are all moving to SLF4J or java.util.logging then it might make sense for us to switch. Mike On 3/17/07, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > According to the recent discussions on the Commons-Dev list it appears > that Commons Logging is not going to be actively developed further, JCL > 2.0 is very unlikely to happen and those projects that rely on Java 1.4 > or newer are advised to migrate to java.util.logging API. > > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Commons-Logging-deprecated--was-Re% > 3A--logging--1.1.1-release--p9427138.html > > That poses a question whether we should revisit our decision to continue > using JCL for HttpClient 4.0 or should consider migrating to another > logging toolkit. > > My personal preference for JCL over SLF4J was based on the premise (1) > we ought to eat our own dog food (2) JCL was actively developed. Since > that no longer appears to be the case I am not sure sticking to JCL in > the long run gives us any benefits. > > How do you all feel about it? Shall we once again discuss our options > and reconsider the choice of a logging toolkit for HttpClient 4.0? > > Please make your opinion known > > Evil Comrade Oleg > > PS: All this makes me very happy HttpCore is not dependent on any > logging toolkit > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
