David Pollak <[email protected]> writes: > Jeppe & Co., > > I've been thinking about the logging changes.
(would have been nice with this before I went and updated all the archetypes & examples...oh well :-) > How about a different approach? How about a new logging system in common > that takes the best of the existing logging system plus a bunch of > enhancements? A few points to consider: 1) How will the end result be better (ie. when everything deprecated is gone, what are the improvements). What are the enhancements you have in mind? Can they be made to the existing code? 2) The amount of work involved. I think we'll have to go through Lift and change all logging references to the new code in order not to include two logging systems for people using the new code. But this could be made as part of #310 I guess. 3) Transition. I think the transition phase will be more difficult: We can't remove the log4j dependency from Lift, so people wanting something else will have to use exclusions in their poms. > We can deprecate the stuff in util, but not phase it out for a while. > > What do you think? I prefer a clean cut, but understand if this is too much. Just to summarize the changes that has been made in http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/tree/jnm_issue_309 1) People will need to modify their code: 1 line in Boot, 1 dependency in pom. See examples in the branch for details. 2) Lift will refuse to boot if 1) has not been done. I've got some time this weekend (wife and kids out of town :-) and would love to finish this, but this requires a decision soon. I'll be hacking Lift later today (8pm CET), so we can discuss further. /Jeppe -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
