I have not had a chance to read in complete detail, but some initial thoughts:
1) I do think that having a "special" version of the digester is going to be a long-term headache. 2) I did like the suggestion (in concept) of having the commons-logging log4j related bits live in the log4j jar. I don't know if I have followed all the implications of this, but I like the idea at the moment. 3) I also liked the idea that the commons-logging interfaces could be broken out from the implementations. 4) As much as I like all the stuff that happens in commons, there are TOO many jars and dependencies to keep track of, IMO. Telling new users of log4j all the jars that they would require to run it is going to become more complicated. 5) All that said, I'm not sure any of it really solves the dependency problem(s). Plus, most of log4j's configuration messages are routed through LogLog, not log4j itself. Is there a way to make the digester (and related classes) use a LogLog version of the commons-logging interface when being used by log4j and do the normal stuff otherwise? just some thoughts, -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 2:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Interesting thread about commons-digester and other > components > > > > The thread can be found here: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102103609500002&r=1&w=2 > > > -- > Ceki > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
