Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 8/14/01 8:04 PM, "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I also think it is reasonable for some people to say they want the smallest
> > JAR/memory footprint that is reasonable. Asking them to include a 15K+ JAR
> > (I think log4jME was down to ~20K or so) probably isn't very reasonable.
>
> Yea, we only have 640k of memory to play with. Right Mr. Gates?
>
> :-)
As an aside, not wanting to jump into the logging debate...
I do appreciate the joke (its pretty good, actually <grin>), but Rodney does
have a point. When you are building custom systems with custom hardware, memory
constraints can be a real issue.
Of course, that being said its usually the jars that take up 1M+ that are the
problem, not the ~250K ones. Although if you add enough of those, you get the
same issue.
Glenn McAllister
SOMA Networks, Inc.
