I can appreciate your desire to revisit the larger logging issue, but in this case this is really less a logging issue and more a case of managing transitive dependencies. We can't guarantee commons-logging won't be needed in the course of our calls against [beanutils], so we should let the transitive dependency pass unmolested.
Matt On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > i would prefer to re-visit the whole topic (see our previous objections). > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/9/7 Matt Benson <[email protected]> >> >> I think something is off with our logging (ugh, I know) dependencies. >> We depend on commons-beanutils (in and of itself a situation about >> which I'm personally not so thrilled, TBH), which in turn depends on >> commons-logging, but for the fact that we exclude this dependency. >> This places a burden on the user to know that he must account for >> commons-logging in some fashion, with no indication to that effect. >> It would seem more proper to remove the exclusion so that the user >> *sees* the transitive dependency and can decide how to handle it if he >> wants to exclude/replace it. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Matt > >
