Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
>>directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
>>(b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compar
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> ATM, I'd say do what you want as long as:
>
> * Cocoon 2.1 stays as it is.
> * Cocoon 2.2 can be run with LogKit.
>
> I.e., I'm ok if you switch default to Log4J and remove logkit.jar, as long as
> I
> can put it back and change the default back to LogKit.
>
Ye
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> IMHO, the long-term(!) strategy should be to use the JDK Logging as the API,
> and "innovative people" will figure out how to redirect that to Log4J or
> something else.
>
Yes, my thoughts go in the same direction: why not use the JDK logging?
It's available and doesn
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
> directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
> (b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
> to logkit, and (c) it
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 9:40, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>>
>> Would be hard to stop you I guess ;)
>>
>> Could you write a summary of the main issues and solution suggestions
>> from that thread? So that we don't need to repeat that discussion again.
>>
> IMHO, we should
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
> Would be hard to stop you I guess ;)
>
> Could you write a summary of the main issues and solution suggestions
> from that thread? So that we don't need to repeat that discussion again.
>
IMHO, we should split the vote:
a) remove dependency to LogKit
b) select anoth
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
Antonio,
Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we hav
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>>
>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>
>> Is that OK?
>
> Antonio,
>
> Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we have long discussions
>
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 6:13, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps telling to replace with log4j was not good. We can change it
>> with
>> whatever else, but I don't want to have a non-suported jar in our
>> distro.
>>
> Yes, but there are only a few possibilities th
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 2:00, Ralph Goers dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>>
>>
>Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>
>Is that OK?
>
>
>>>-1
>>>
>>>
> I'm also -1. I might consider repla
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> Perhaps telling to replace with log4j was not good. We can change it with
> whatever else, but I don't want to have a non-suported jar in our distro.
>
Yes, but there are only a few possibilities that make sense: log4j,
commons logging, jdk14 - we can still support al
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 1:58, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>> Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>>
> I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
> see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
This is the idea,
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:50, Reinhard Poetz dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>>
>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>
>> Is that OK?
>
> haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not to
> change it?
I t
On 01 Jun 2005, at 09:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
Your statement implies that once a project matures and fulfills its
purpose that it should then be abandoned because no new development is
being done. That doesn't make sense.
+1
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
> If you are talking about keeping the dependency on
> org.apache.avalon.excalibur.logger.LoggerManager and
> org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.Logger in CocoonServlet, then I don't
> really care as those are the two interfaces I implement to use my own
> logging framework.
Il giorno 01/giu/05, alle 08:58, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
mean that our logging
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the
Ralph Goers wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
-1
I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
directly. However, (a) UG
Leszek Gawron wrote:
>
> Not that totally: we do not have a cocoon log formatter giving the same
> functionality as the logkit one.
>
You're right. But I guess it would be easy to provide a formatter for
whatever logging system we decide to use.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
-1
I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
mean that o
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>
>>> Is that OK?
>
> -1
Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
Seem
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
"Netcraft confirms: LogKit is dying!"
:-)
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
-1
haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
to change i
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
Antonio,
Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we have long discussions
about changing logging package a couple of times every year. The last
one is he
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 12:24, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
Thanks Niclas. I will prefer th
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 12:24, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
>> > You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
>>
>> Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publi
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> > You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
>
> Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publish the javadocs. Is this
> posible?
I would like to see that
On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 06:24, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
>> knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
>>
>> BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. commit
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 06:24, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
> knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
>
> BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. committing soon.
I have just generated the javadocs from the LogKit s
Hi:
Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. committing soon.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
32 matches
Mail list logo