Costin,
I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However, I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-logging really useful they will build a community around it. What I say or think won't matter. At 15:17 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > True. It does encourage it, but only initially. On the long run, > > however, people will run into problems with their logging (as is > > happening now). They will say this commons-logging+log4j stuff is too > > complicated, we'll switch to JDK 1.4 logging, at least that does not > >And you are the only one who can make commons-logging + log4j to be >the best solution on the long run. > >By implementing and maintaining the log4j implementation of >commons-logging. > >The API is a subset of log4j, and if you really want to help the users >all you have to do is take ownership of a log4j implementation of >commons-logging. > >It doesn't even have to be included in commons-logging, it is >better if each log4j impl. had it's own implementation of the wrapper, >possibly taking advantage of new features, etc. > >Costin -- Ceki My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
