Indrajit Raychaudhuri <[email protected]> writes: >> 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? > > The reason for me is to remove dependency on lift-util for using > logging. Also, pulling up logging in lift-common allows all other > modules in Lift to freely use logging. I was even tempted to consider > suggesting lift-logging sometime back but that appeared too marginal > to be considered a full fledged module.
Ahh I see. I didn't realize that not all modules use util. In that case I think this sounds like the best approach when the dust has settled. >> 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. > > We can possibly take the same approach as LRU. +1 on making it part of > #310. LRU as in Least Recently Used or??? >> 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. > > Ouch! Indeed >>> 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. > > Let's deprecate instead. Can be removed post 2.0 :) Given my new insight, I agree :-) David, would still like to hear what enhancements you had in mind? /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.
