On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:49:15 -0500 > From: Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [logging] To depend or not to depend? > > Starting a new thread for this, it really has little to do with CLI. > > We are having a similar dilemma in XML-RPC. The idea of a > SafeCommonsLogger seems sound. It could even end up in a commons-stub > package. It would do nothing if commons-logging-api.jar or > commons-logging.jar is not in the CLASSPATH. > Instead of trying to convert every commons-logging user in the world to switch to using SafeCommonsLogger as a wrapper around commons-logging (which is itself a wrapper around ... nah, let's not go there at the moment :-), I have an alternative suggestion. Why not just provide a trivially simple two-class JAR file that defines org.apache.commons.logging.Log and org.apache.commons.logging.LogFactory with exactly the same public APIs as the "real" ones? Then, just ship this tiny little JAR file with apps (or applets) that don't want to use commons-logging. The resulting JAR file is going to be pretty much the same size as something containing SafeCommonsLogger anyway. As long as your replacement classes maintain binary compatibility with the standard ones, any code that currently thinks it is using commons-logging will be transparently using your own version instead. > -- > Ryan Hoegg Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
