I'd rather use java.util.logging than commons-logging, but I think both
are overkill for a library. I think Nathan is spot on and we should
look to using Velocity's logging classes, imported into our codebase.
The whole logging "framework" we'd need would be like two or three classes.
Jarjar would also be nice, perhaps in conjunction with Velocity's
logging classes. It would help us solve the xwork version problem nicely.
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
On 8/22/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Say, wasn't there a mention of some package that renamed packages
dynamically or something? That's the real issue. Two versions of the
same package name on the same classpath.
jarjar
In the case of logging though, we should just use java.util.logging.
If you still want to use log4j, why not write a j.u.logging Handler which
logs to log4j? Do we really need an API to decouple us from an API which
decouples us from a logging implementation, or is one level of
indirection
sufficient? This is why everyone makes fun of clogging.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
