On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we won't be using the beanutils based config but > rather use either our embedding API or our Spring based config. The > latter currently bring in jcl-over-slf4j so that's not a win anyways. We love Spring, for sure. But if you want to do any web-based security (user x can't access url y), then you'll want to use the web.xml config. This doesn't sound necessary for an FTP server of course, but if you needed web-based management, it might be something to think about - I'm just throwing it out there ;) Well, maybe because SLF4J has made JCL redundant. Also, Ceki who's the > author of SLF4J is a long-time Apache commiter and, Apache projects > (at least not those I follow) don't tend to prefer a dependency just > because it's at Apache. If it's under a compatible license and is a > stable project, great. Oh, I thought there was a preference. That is, when we had to form our Proposal for incubation, one of the questions was how we have "Ties to other Apache products" - this led me to believe that it is important within the ASF to eat its own dogfood if possible. I don't see why JCL 2.0 couldn't be that dogfood. But I now understand why it isn't. I still feel that is too bad - it would be nice to just use JCL still. Especially with the ubiquity that it has - it would make it a much easier thing for an organization to upgrade to JCL 2.0 than to switch to a different framework entirely - many times you have to get this approved by standards bodies, etc. Life is just easier to upgrade a library that almost everyone uses already. Les
