At 01:13 10/5/01 +1000, Tim Vernum wrote: > >From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> on 5/9/01 7:56 PM, "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Why? >> > Why do you care what toolkit Ant uses to do the logging? >> >> Simply put: >> >> I want choice. > >Choice for choice's sake doesn't make much sense to me. >It's just the colour of the bike shed.
agreed. >If either of the logging kits offers real differences for the end user, then can someone please post them, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument on that point from anyone. Not really much difference. Logkit is faster, simpler, smaller and lightweight whereas log4j is more a logging framework. In log4j you can do much more and create other logging toolkits based on it (ie create own categories, priorities etc). It pays for this in complexity. >If there's no end user difference, then Ant should use the one that simplest for the developer. +100000000000000 ;) >> It is such a thin layer that I don't think this is an issue. I already >> posted the code. > >But does it do everything that we need? >(Honest question) nope - see last mail. We need hierarchial categories. However what ever system we end up using will need to be simple enough to write adapters to from "ant native" debugging to whatever underlying system we use. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
