on 2002/12/10 4:59 PM, "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm strongly -1 on using the Avalon logging interface because this is
>> something that belongs in Commons. There is no reason for Avalon to have
>> *yet another logging interface* when commons-logging is available.
>
> Actually, the Avalon interface IIRC is older.
I don't care who is older. Like everyone else around here, I care about
where things live.
> It has not been reimplemented, rather the opposite, and your attitude is
> of no help.
My attitude is of no help towards your cause. Of course it isn't. We are not
agreeing on this topic. I love how you imply that because I'm disagreeing
with you that I'm no help.
> Anyway, I will propose again to our list that we use the Logger
> interface somehow in the new Avalon 5, or try somehow to reunite the scism.
+1
Avalon should drop whatever duplicate logging interfaces it has and adopt
commons-logging. The same should go for Turbine and every other Jakarta
application out there.
> Remember though that the fact that commons strongly opposes anything
> that has even a remote hint about avalon framework really doesn't help.
It does not help YOU! That isn't my problem. Don't think you can come around
here and try to push your Avalon stuff on the people here as a way to get
around the Commons project disagreeing with Avalon. That isn't my problem
and I don't really care to get into those wars.
I am starting to like the idea of Avalon for some stuff...mostly as a
container, but I'm certainly not going to pick an Avalon detail over a
Commons detail.
If you think of things like a tree...commons is the top and we
(Turbine/Avalon) are the branches. We should both be picking from the top.
-jon
--
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
