> Andrew, Daniel, pay attention: > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > >Why not just provide a trivially simple two-class JAR file that defines > >org.apache.commons.logging.Log and org.apache.commons.logging.LogFactory > >with exactly the same public APIs as the "real" ones? Then, just ship > >this tiny little JAR file with apps (or applets) that don't want to use > >commons-logging. The resulting JAR file is going to be pretty much the > >same size as something containing SafeCommonsLogger anyway. > > > >As long as your replacement classes maintain binary compatibility with the > >standard ones, any code that currently thinks it is using commons-logging > >will be transparently using your own version instead. > > > What do you think of this scenario?
This sounds fine. We would always need a dependency on the Log interface (and probably LogFactory) at compile and runtime. This solution means we don't need a runtime dependency on a large JAR file, we can simply package these two classes in with the applet JAR. Andrew.
