----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Logging
[snip]
>If people are going to use commons components than they are going to have
to
>conform to something log4j or otherwise. They must use what we have chosen,
>and my argument is still that the simple logging API is deficient for
larger
>components. My argument is that when you add the features that provide
>logging features that can be used thoughout a family of components of
>varying complexity you approach what log4j is.
why do they need to conform to log4j or otherwise ? The majority won't care
at all about logging, they just want to use the framework ! They want
something easy to use that's all ...
>I honestly don't think it would be at all. I really think that people want
>to use what's standard especially for such basic needs as logging. There
>will be integration issues with any divergent logging tools but I think our
>settling on something standard like log4j will help moves others toward
>log4j.
They use whatever they want ... Let them choose. We just need to make sure
that our "logging settings" do not interfere with any of the logging
framework they might want to use.
>This than should also be added to criteria list and we should find a way to
>make log4j do this. Possibly a little bootstrap class or something, I'm
sure
>Ceki might have some ideas. If this criteria was met, full transparency,
>would you than consider using log4j?
Ah, exactly what I proposed ... :)
If we had this, yes, I would absolutely be +1 to using Log4j !
-Vincent
