On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 16:16 +0100, Ortwin Glück wrote: > > Michael Becke 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. > > Exactly. Despite widespread criticism I consider JCL quite good for the job. > > > 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. > > Well, with JCL we already support java.util.logging as an underlying > implementation. java.util.logging is NOT an alternative for JCL.
Odi, Actually, java.util.logging should also be considered. In fact Simon suggests all new projects should move to JUL. The only missing bit in my opinion is a JUL adapter for LOG4J. Oleg > But > SLF4J might be. > > The question for us boils down to > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-416 > > Maybe reopen. > > Odi > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
