On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:59, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > The one benefit is for classes which have external dependencies (ie > > Logkit/Log4j etc). Splitting the jars makes it possible for > > us to keep > > LogKit/Log4j out of the base Classloader but we can still > > resolve them higher > > up in the chain where the classloaders are present. > > I can support this approach: > > 1) Core Avalon (no requirements for dependencies from any other jar > including LogKit/Log4J) > > 2) Add-on Jars (adding LogKit/Log4J functionality using the external > jar). > > But this also begs the question why have a Jar for one or two classes? > If the LogKit/Log4J compliance is done at a higher level (i.e. those > classes are moved into Excalibur Logger for example), then the core > Avalon is dependency free and still one jar. > > Is that a viable solution?
For Avalon5 it sounds good (though I would put LogKit adapter in Logkit jar somewhere to reduce the lines of dependency). For now it may be best just to split the jars. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ----------------------------------------------- | If you turn on the light quickly enough, | | you can see what the dark looks like. | ----------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
