Well,

Is 1.1 really used nowadays? i mean.. at least 1.2 is acceptable coz the
threading model was changed.

We could, strip out all unwanted loggers, and give a lite-version of JCL
(with SimpleLogger), IMHO.

On 2/18/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> i've been considering for a while whether the commons should ship a
> simpler but reasonably compatible version of JCL. over the years, we've
> recommended this so many times but have always left it to the actual
> user to go away and do the work themselves. i've come to the conclusion
> that it would be a good idea for this to be available as a separate
> component.
>
> i think that there is an argument that we leave static binding until
> JCL2.0 but i would prefer a version to be available as a (limited)
> substitute for 1.1.
>
> this would be created by stripping out all the classloading magic
> required to support the java 1.2 hierarchical classloading model and
> would be java 1.1 compatible. most of the standard JCL configuration
> mechanisms would still be used but only the class classloader would be
> searched. the jar would be fully compatible with the JCL API but
> semantically (and possibly also binary) incompatible with the SPI.
>
> no exceptions would be thrown when discovery fails: a backup log
> implementation would be provided. the diagnostic log switch would allow
> limited debugging of configurations.
>
> this would be runtime only substitute: applications should still compile
> against the conventional JCL jar.
>
> use cases replacing (dynamic discovery) JCL:
>
> * for J2ME applications
> * for applets
> * for some client-side applications
> * for frameworks which do not want JCL dependencies (Torsten's
> requirements)
> * for those requiring maximum performance (at the expense of
> flexibility)
>
> opinions?
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net

Reply via email to