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 compared
to
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't
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.
Yes, it
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 our
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
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
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,
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)
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
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
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. I
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
--
Steven Noels
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 think this is
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,
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 all
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 replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
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 that make sense:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
snip/
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
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
snip/
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
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 another
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 split the
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 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
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. committing soon.
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 too.
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 publish the
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
snip/
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
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
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?
Seems like the
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.
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
