Thanks for your timely responses! You must be camping the list, Matthew! ;-)
Nah, we have an agreement, I answer the easy questions, and Armin, Jakob and Thomas answer everything else. m >-----Original Message----- >From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:27 PM >To: OJB Users List >Subject: Re: commons-logging > > >Oh? I didn't notice that - perhaps I missed it in the source? If >that's the case I feel down-right stupid :-O > >Wouldn't it be simpler to just use commons-logging period though? ... >and not have to deal with any logging details inside of OJB? > >Matthew Baird wrote: > > > >>OJB supports commmons logging, our own logging implementation, and log4j. What more >could you ask for? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:23 PM >>To: OJB Users List >>Subject: commons-logging >> >> >>I was just curious why OJB continues to use it's own home-brewed logging >>strategy over commons-logging. Anyone know? That's about the only >>thing I dislike about it - makes me deal with two different logging setups. >> >>Thanks :-) >> -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
