So now you just create a new appender that calls their proprietary logging system.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:22 PM To: 'Log4J Developers List' Subject: RE: What to do about commons-logging (if anything) That is not a bad solution either, and we should consider it. I wonder how big log4j is once you strip out all of the non-essentials. I know there is the log4jMini project... But then Company Z comes along and says "We already have an existing, proprietary logging system in our embedded system. Can you rewrite your library to tie into it instead of using log4j?" -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: David Janovy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:17 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: What to do about commons-logging (if anything) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:08 PM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: What to do about commons-logging (if anything) > > > ....it would be simple to use a different > logging class, much smaller than the 180K log4j.jar and none > of the library > code would need to change at all. .... > > Why not just create a minimalist log4j.jar? That way the > interfaces would remain the same, the code would be shared > with the larger log4j.jar, and people would not have to > learn/implement different logging schemes. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
