> <repeat>I wasn't making an argument.</repeat>
>
> <repeat>I was simply expressing an opinion.</repeat>
Whatever you call it, you where way far from making your opinion as clear
as Jason did. There is no advantage on expressing an opinion if you do
not try to make it clear.
> Ok, so if we make a dependency on Log4J today knowing that in the future,
> Log4J will support the Java Logging API, what the heck is the difference?
And do you really _know_ that?
Before the API is out, I think that is presuming too much.
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:26 PM
>
>
> on 8/1/01 3:20 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unlike Jon's, this kind of objective argumentation makes a lot
> > more sense to me and it sure raises my interest for log4j.
>
> <repeat>I wasn't making an argument.</repeat>
>
> <repeat>I was simply expressing an opinion.</repeat>
>
> The fact that my opinion happens to be based on an enlightened opinion
> because I listen to Jason on other lists definitely influenced my opinion.
>
> Please attempt to understand that. I'm getting tired of repeating
> myself to
> you.
>
> > However, I still think that this and other libraries (e.g.:
> > HttpClient) should be log-engine agnostic. Even when there is
> > a standard API, they should use that API but still stay engine
> > agnostic.
>
> Ok, so if we make a dependency on Log4J today knowing that in the future,
> Log4J will support the Java Logging API, what the heck is the difference?
>
> -jon
>
