On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:33:47 +0000, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i also understand remy's point: backwards compatibility is very > important. it is JCL's huge installation base that gives momentum. many > users will review the choice of logging system altogether when faced > with a binary incompatible upgrade and (i suspect) many will (like remy) > choose java.util.logging. i think that a measure of backwards > compatibility is necessary for adoption.
Yes definitely. If I am forced to adopt a different logging API for development, as the work will be on JDK 1.4, it will be java.util.logging. Having written a custom impl of java.util.logging, I can now assert that, given the right implementation of LogManager, it is powerful enough. BTW, assuming the logging project is now open and friendly enough, is there room for such a project there ? > personally speaking, i find working on JCL a difficult and often > thankless task. i'd be grateful if logging offered to take away all my > JCL pain. however, i do feel an obligation to downstream users (such as > remy). i feel duty bound to act in their best interests. i am > unconvinced that simply renaming UGLI to JCL2 would be in their best > interests (or indeed anyone's) but (as i said previously) the JCL > developers are not in any real position to either help or hinder any > move to rebrand UGLI. That's fine, and thanks for all the hard work. c-l works well enough in Tomcat right now, so no more updates are actually needed (especially non backwards compatible updates ;) ). -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rémy Maucherat Developer & Consultant JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
