On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 8/14/01 3:05 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we're going to do something like this, it seems to me we should either
> > adopt the "commons logger layer" that Rodney proposed, or bite the bullet
> > and pick which logging API we want to support. It doesn't make sense for
> > every commons package "Foo" to create their own "FooLogger" interface.
>
> At this point, after tons and tons of discussion, I have finally agreed with
> JVZ and settled on one logging system. Log4J.
>
The fact that you as a person have agreed to this is totally up to you
... wouldn't dream of telling you what to do :-)
The fact that you as a member of Turbine's developer community have
convinced them to go that way is totally up that community.
The fact that Commons components are used (if we achieve our
aims) everywhere people write servers, in every possible environment,
means we need to be willing to understand that not everyone in the world
is going to be OK with having to support Log4J just to use another
component.
> I'm actually a bit surprised to see a proposal for an abstraction layer in
> the commons.
>
It happens because the rest of the world is not going to make a single
binary decision at this point, just because you did :-).
> -jon
>
>
Craig
