OK, it's time for me to come down off the fence. I'm convinced that some of our components require logging. I'm not convinced that most committers will support Log4J, even though it's my personal choice. In fact, I see dissention within my own projects. Remy doesn't want Log4J statements in the HttpClient code, but Dirk voted against the Logging component. Sigh, can't we all just get along? Although I wish it was not necessary, it seems like if the Logging component gets voted down, we'll end up with no logging at all, not Log4J logging. I think that the Logging component is a reasonable abstraction, and I can't stand by and watch logging itself disappear. So I have to give the Logging component +1. - Morgan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Proposal to jakarta... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Proposal t... Jon Stevens
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Proposal t... James Strachan
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Propos... Morgan Delagrange
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Propos... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging" Pr... James Strachan
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging"... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Logging... Morgan Delagrange
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "Log... cmanolache
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Morgan Delagrange
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Peter Donald
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Ceki Gülcü
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Peter Donald
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Jon Stevens
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Craig R. McClanahan
- RE: [VOTE] Promote "... Paulo Gaspar
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... Ceki Gülcü
- Re: [VOTE] Promote "... cmanolache