>> 6.3) No matter what
>"logging abstraction" is used,
>someone will need to add a
>little bit of glue code to
>connect the abstraction to
>the implementation.
>Reasonable or not, in
>practice I suspect that most
>other logging
>implementations will be
>loathe to create direct log4j
>wrappers for their logging
>systems--to do so would
>seem to be admitting defeat
>at some level and clearly
>makes log4j the defacto
>standard. Having this stuff
>live in the log4j code base
>might also be awkward.
>
>Are you really saying make
>commons-logging the
>standard because "admitting
>log4j is the defacto
>standard" is a bad thing ?
I'm uncomfortable with the word "standard" wrt. the Logging component. In
fact advocating this component as a standard is explicitly listed in the
proposal as a non-goal. Were it to become a Commons component, it would
just be a tool, doing what an abstraction layer does with the smallest
possible footprint.
- Morgan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
