After having read about it this is my oppinion -1 for 1.2 +1 for 1.3 (perhaps with the "soft" transition) +1 for 2.0 (totally replaced)
Frank On 10/25/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 for 1.2 0 for 1.3 +1 for 2.0 Juergen On 10/25/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "complex classloader machinations" should be avoided at all time ;) > > but fine by me if it suits people better. > This api doesn't fall back automatically doesn't it? (if log4j is not found > then jdk14) > You need to place the right jars? > > So i guess instead of having commons-logging.jar we have 3 jars? (api, impl > and migration) > > johan > > > On 10/24/06, Alastair Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > commons-logging is somewhat evil, with complex classloader machinations > > that leak memory and resources if you're not careful. If you haven't > > experienced commons-logging classloader hell, consider yourself lucky. > > > > See the following: > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/2003/08/15.html > > http://www.qos.ch/logging/classloader.jsp > > http://jonasboner.com/?p=70 > > http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp > > etc. > > > > SLF4J provides a nice simple alternative, which people in other OS > > projects have been migrating to in droves recently. I suggest we follow > > them. > > > > If we don't want to patch everything at once, there's a migration API: > > http://www.slf4j.org/manual.html#gradual > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Al > > > >
