Well, I submitted this as a bug and included a patch. But Remy immediately marked it as RESOLVED/WONTFIX. He doesn't really address my suggestion other than to say that c-l "if used properly ... is well thought out, and works perfectly well" I would never suggest that c-l is not well thought out. However, I don't think that all the problems we see involving c-l classloading can be attributed to us not using c-l "properly". It may work perfectly well with Tomcat5, but that doesn't mean there aren't improvements that can be made. Or even accomodations that could be made to other containers than Tomcat5.
Could someone please explain why the suggestion to load the Log interface with the loadClass() method is not acceptable.
- The core Log classes should be loaded once from one place (= (basically) they should be in the system classloader)
- the log implementations (ex: the log4j implementation) should reside in the same classloader as the logger; ideally, the logger ships with wrapper classes for commons-logging
This is the most efficient design, and fairly easy to understand. Coincidentally, this is the design that commons-logging implements, and it is good for a complex container environment.
Remy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
