On Tuesday, July 31, 2001, at 07:34 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
<snip>
> We could also work on making a skeletal version of log4j that
> could be very small. I think we should work in this in the context
> of the highly successful logging project we already have instead
> of trying to roll yet another logging interface that is non-standard.
i would really like to see something like that adopted but it's much more
important to me that i *can* use log4j for logging for the projects in
commons (without having to rewrite them, of course ;-)
what worries me is that you only need a few -1's to produce stalemate (see
the way the voting went)
i have a bad feeling that log4j (or indeed) any choice of logging will end
up being vetoed :(
in the light of this i think that an interface (hopefully based on the
log4j Category signature) is the best way forward for the moment.
- robert
