gt; Subject: Re: [logging] defaulting to SimpleLog?
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> > +0. I am fine with that, but I assume that Craig or Robert had a reason
> > for NoOpLog being the default. I personally am fine with either, as
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:
> +0. I am fine with that, but I assume that Craig or Robert had a reason
> for NoOpLog being the default. I personally am fine with either, as I
> *always* set my Log ;-)
i think that this was decided by rodney and morgan (the
002 11:00 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers
> Subject: [logging] defaulting to SimpleLog?
>
>
> I've been working with the logging component in the betwixt
> package. I noticed it currently defaults to NoOp if log4j or
> logkit or JDK1.4 are not on the classpath.
I've been working with the logging component in the betwixt package. I
noticed it currently defaults to NoOp if log4j or logkit or JDK1.4 are not
on the classpath.
Would it not be more useful to developers in general to default to SimpleLog
with a brief logging level, like WARN or ERROR? Folks ca
