Converting mandatory dependencies to optional is a key part of solving some of the dilemas with commons. And yes, some solutions will be different from those we would adopt in our day jobs.
This solution is neat and simple - if you want logging for beanutils then add commons-logging to your classpath, if you don't want logging then don't add it. Perfect! +1 from commons committer Stephen --- "matthew.hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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'm not a BeanUtils committer but as a user and > Commons committer here's > > my -1. > > I don't see it so much as an abstraction, but > instead as the conversion > of a dependency > from mandatory to optional. > > If a [beanutils] user doesn't care about logging, > they shouldn't have to > worry about > including commons-logging in the classpath. The > solution to this > problem may seem a bit > strange to some, but I think that it's worth the > trouble. > > +1 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
