Actually, the only reason that Baritus has a dependency on Log4J, is because
Maverick has (and Baritus is an extension of Maverick). Velocity does not
have a direct dependency on Log4J (see,
but it's probably easiest to work with Log4J in this case.

About Log4J... I wouldn't be too scared about changes; It's been pretty
stable for a long time now.

And then about Baritus... allthough it does not seem very bussy, it's very
actively maintained. Most of the communication right now is within the
company I work for and between us and some of our customers who also use it.
It would be great to have your suggestions, especially on documentation etc.
as I am still working on that.

Furthermore, as I asked before (and I will not ask again after this...
honest;) ), I would *really* appreciate it if the maintainers of Maverick
could place a link to Baritus on the Maverick site. Baritus it not a
competitor of Maverick, it's just a non-intrusive addition to Maverick for
the people that would like to use Maverick with some of the features (like
validation, error reporting and using interceptors) you can find with
frameworks like Struts and WebWork.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Mav-user] Use Apache Commons Logging instead of log4j

Part of my wanting to use commons logging is to use java.util.logging
package. Because we're a tiny company we try to stick w/ built-in
libraries when possible. Even though the jar file count would stay the
same, I'm assuming the commons-logging library will change far less than
log4j? Therefor one less headache when updating apps at our clients.

This may all be moot because we also use Velocity and I'm looking at
Baritus.. Both which have requirements on log4j.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [Mav-user] Use Apache Commons Logging instead of log4j
> I don't have an opinion either way, and no objections to
> those who are in favor of the switch... but I guess I'm not
> really clear on how switching to commons-logging helps the
> jar file explosion.  As I see it:
> Current: log4j.jar
> Proposal: commons-logging.jar + log4j.jar -- or -- 
> commons-logging.jar + (JDK logging)
> So as I see it, it's 1 jar (current) vs. 1 or 2 jars (proposal).
> What am I missing here?
> -Thomas

This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.

This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X.
>From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one
installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and
evaluate today!

Reply via email to