Re: [httpclient] log4j redux

[Daniel Rall]

"James Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Why don't we try arrange for a 'log4j-micro.jar' distribution which offers
> very basic logging features out of the box but is API compatible (using a
> small subset of log4j's code) - then folk can switch out log4j-micro.jar to
> logj4.jar and get the full version?
> 
> (Though at 60k maybe we already have log4j-micro.jar ;-)

I'm throwing in my non-commiter +1 in favor of Log4J.  It's definitely
been a boon to Turbine.

Daniel