On Mie, 5 de Enero de 2005, 15:02, Jean Pierre LeJacq dijo:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> > So far we have:
>> >
>> > -1 on commons-logging (from Nicola)
>> > -1 on log4j (from me)
>> > -1 on jdk logger (from me - same reason as log4j)
>> > and it looks like -1 on UGLI from Torsten.
>> >
>> > That leaves logkit and just4log (which I haven't looked at). Unless
>> > someone has something else?
>>
>> I don't want to escalate this unnecessarely, but the above should be
>> treated as votes, not vetos.
>>
>> My point being: it might be wise not to change things too much ("if
>> ain't broken don't fix it" and all that) but at the same time, it's
>> getting kind of ridiculous that we are the only users of a particular
>> API.
>>
>> Can you tell us more about why you can't have a direct dependency on
>> log4j?
>
> Along the same lines, what issues does the jdk logger have? It
> would seem to make the most sense in terms of long term community
> support to use the jdk supported logging system.
Maybe a silly question:
Will cocoon be compatible with other Java VM?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
