On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why even worry about that while we still have beanutils as a dependency > and > > commons-logging works fine, or if there are CL issues, jcl-over-slf4J.jar > > works fine. > > As for beanutils, if you haven't already, feel free to open an issue > with beanutils and let the same discussion start over there. There is > at least one commons commiter on this thread (me) so we can carry the > discussion over. > > As a future user of JSecurity, we're in the works of throwing out our > homebrewed solution in FtpServer for JSecurity, I'm in the opposite > situation with regards to download size. With the inclusion of > JSecurity, we will now have to ship jcl-over-slf4j as we use SLF4J. We > already do for Spring but that's an optional dependency and hopefully > one that goes away with time. That said, that's just one sample out of > many, there are of course others in the reverse situation. You have to do that anyway because of the beanutils dependency (unless you won't use JSecurity's text or web.xml configuration - I don't know your usage scenario). If the next stable release of beanutils had SLF4J as a dependency instead of commons logging, it would make much more sense to me to switch to SLF4J. But I don't know it is worth doing so until this happens. Are commons projects managed by different PMCs? That is, is commons-beanutils managed by a different PMC than commons-beanutils? I know they report to the Jakarta PMC, but I was wondering if there were sub-PMCs that have respective decision making ability. If not, it would be easiest if all commons projects used SLF4J, and then we wouldn't have to worry about it anymore for almost any Apache project. Or, maybe a better question is that why can't the next version of commons-logging (2.0?) just do what SLF4J does today with static binding? If everyone is so eager to move towards that model, why can't they make the change and then SLF4J becomes reduntant? The benefit of this is that we would be able to continue to use an internal Apache project, not an external one. I have a strong suspicion that this request has been beaten to death by the commons-logging respective PMC (it seems to be a somewhat frequent request) so I don't know that it'd be worth joining the user list and debating it further. Maybe it would, but my main focus is on our upcoming release candidate, and I don't know that I could take more logging debates... Les
