On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 00:53, David Graham wrote: > I was reluctantly in favor of copying certain Collections classes as a > temporary solution to removing that dependency but I don't see why we want > to permanently copy Logging classes to other projects. Commons Logging is > an abstraction for Log4j and java.util.logging; now we're going to add yet > another abstraction above Commons Logging? That doesn't make any sense to > me.
I understand your concerns. A layer between libs and commons-logging does seem a little odd at first. It would be nice if commons-logging were so small that it could be copied in its entirety into each project, allowing every project to access any logging library. However that isn't the case. Commons-logging is small and stable, but not small and stable enough for that. Duplication of code *is* a reasonable solution, sometimes. If you wanted to sum up the values in an array of ints, would you find, download and use a library that had that code in it, or would you just write the necessary 3 lines of code? But of course anyone duplicating a complex piece of code like a fourier transform would deserve a good LARTing. It's a grey line. I think duplicating one simple class and one interface in order to avoid a dependency on commons-logging is reasonable. However I'm happy to go with the majority opinion on that; as I said in another email, for the work *I* do with java, bundling commons-logging is not an issue. Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
