If I were inclined to change Shale's own logging APIs, I'd just switch to JDK 1.4 logging and be done with an external dependency (since Shale presumes 1.4 or later anyway). Shale's own needs are very modest, and would be adequately met by what is already built in.
That being said, switching to either UGLI or JDK 1.4 logging would be pointless if the objective is to banish JCL (reading Ceki on commons-dev has been quite entertaining lately :-), since Shale still depends on other packages that depend on JCL (currently Chain and Digester, others will undoubtedly be added later). I don't see a high likelihood that all of the packages that matter here would switch away from JCL any time soon, and won't bother to re-implement any of that stuff myself to eliminate dependencies. Personally, I plan to spend my time focusing on functionality instead of on plumbing. Craig On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:43:00 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Original Message --- > From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:06:03 +0100 > Subject: UGLI instead of JCL? > > > Hi Ted, > > > > May I suggest that for Shale you consider switching to UGLI [1] > > instead of JCL because the former causes none of the class loader > > problems of the latter? > > > > After spending a week trying to understand and reproduce JCL's > > problems [2] I can confidently state that it is broken beyond > > repair. Anyway, just to let you know... > > > > Cheers, > > > > [1] http://logging.apache.org/log4j/docs/ugli.html > > [2] http://www.qos.ch/logging/classloader.jsp > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
