On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 12:48 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
I also talked about removing the commons-logging dependency (which
seemed to be in agreeance at the time),
as at least in our environment we don't use it.
The more I think about this the more I get the opinion we should
also
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 21:14 +, robert burrell donkin wrote:
i agree with ceki that the future is static (rather than dynamic)
binding. i prefer bytecode engineering to different compilation.
And I agree with both of you - provided one of the static
implementations provides much of the
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 21:04 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
snip
Can a new release of CL rule out all the classloading problems
people had before?
What's currently in SVN head will probably fix 90% of the problems, and
is about 99% backwards compatible. I would love to see it released, so
I also talked about removing the commons-logging dependency (which
seemed to be in agreeance at the time),
as at least in our environment we don't use it.
The more I think about this the more I get the opinion we should
also provide a commons-logging-stub.jar to satisfy commons-logging
We've been discussing the logging issue over in the Drools world. We
have decided not to fight against this, at some point or other as we
grow our capabilities and depend more on third party libraries we are
going to find a tool that insists on commons logging - so might as well
be now.
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 12:48 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
I also talked about removing the commons-logging dependency (which
seemed to be in agreeance at the time),
as at least in our environment we don't use it.
The more I think about this the more I get the opinion we should
also
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 15:51 +, Mark Proctor wrote:
We've been discussing the logging issue over in the Drools world. We
have decided not to fight against this, at some point or other as we
grow our capabilities and depend more on third party libraries we are
going to find a tool that
