On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
> Indrajit Raychaudhuri 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?
Indrajit Raychaudhuri 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
On 12/02/10 2:36 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
David Pollak writes:
Jeppe& Co.,
I've been thinking about the logging changes.
(would have been nice with this before I went and updated all the
archetypes& examples...oh well :-)
How about a different approach? How about a new logging
David Pollak writes:
> Jeppe & Co.,
>
> I've been thinking about the logging changes.
(would have been nice with this before I went and updated all the
archetypes & examples...oh well :-)
> How about a different approach? How about a new logging system in common
> that takes the best of the ex
On 12 February 2010 05:56, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
> How about a different approach? How about a new logging system in common
> that takes the best of the existing logging system plus a bunch of
> enhancements?
Are you thinking of something that could also be used "standalone", i.e.
outside of L
Jeppe & Co.,
I've been thinking about the logging changes.
How about a different approach? How about a new logging system in common
that takes the best of the existing logging system plus a bunch of
enhancements? We can deprecate the stuff in util, but not phase it out for
a while.
What do you
