Hello,
what is the alternative?
How is this handled by the RI?
What is the performance impakt?
Why not a container can separate each jsf webapp with a separate
classloader? Independent of the jsf implementation is provided by the
container or not.
Can we remove commons logging and use jdk
this was discussed near to death in the past.
search for simon kitching and logging here in the myfaces list
-M
On 2/27/07, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
what is the alternative?
How is this handled by the RI?
What is the performance impakt?
Why not a container can
Dennis Byrne schrieb:
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
+1 for that as well, this has been a code burden for too long.
+1
--Manfred
On 2/27/07, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Byrne schrieb:
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
+1 for that as well, this has been a code burden for too long.
Hi Matthias!
this was discussed near to death in the past.
search for simon kitching and logging here in the myfaces list
Anyway, just that we really know what we are talking about:
We have to remove the static keyword from the logger
and add a method getLog() which will lazily get the logger
Mario Ivankovits schrieb:
And - some prerequisites have changed - how many sense does it make when
all new jee container forbid to have a custom jsf jar in your webapp-lib?
Then the gc problem should no longer exist as this library will not be
reloaded then, no?
I think it still makes
Theres a page about this on the logging wiki here:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Logging/StaticLog
Niall
On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this was discussed near to death in the past.
search for simon kitching and logging here in the myfaces list
-M
On
+1 for removing the static.
What is about java.util.logging? Can/Should we use it for 1.2?
IMO it is better to use java.util.logging. Apart from the unusable
default implementation for java.util.logging the reason not to use it
in myfaces 1.1 was the dependency to java 1.4. But jsf 1.2 will
good point if you can hook commons.logging (I know this is somewhat
insane because commons is just a meta logger)
below it, I do not know the core java logging api good enough
but every dependency we can remove is a + from me.
Problem is if we cannot provide a path to hook commons logging into
it
+1 for removing static, +1 for using java.util.logging. I'm also somewhat
against using commons logging; what real benefit would it afford us ?
On 2/27/07, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
good point if you can hook commons.logging (I know this is somewhat
insane because commons is just a
+1 for removing static logging.
-1 for java.util.logging. I like the freedom that commons logging
provides. In my case, I use log4j to email log entries that meet a
specific criteria while others are written to a rotating log. Their may
be way to do this using java.util.logging, I am pretty
-0.9 for removing commons-logging from jsf1.2 branch (now)
Explanation:
In the near future we will have to manage two branches that
originate from the same source: jsf 1.1.x and 1.2.x. Making massive
changes to the jsf1.2 codebase that are NOT alone based on jsf 1.1 and
1.2 spec differences are
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
On 2/26/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent observation, Dennis. In Geronimo and a few other app
servers I am familiar with the user is provided with several knobs
that can affect classloading.
+1
On 2/26/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
On 2/26/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent observation, Dennis. In Geronimo and a few other app
servers I am familiar with the user is
+1
On 2/27/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 2/26/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
On 2/26/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent observation, Dennis. In Geronimo
+1 non-binding
On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 2/27/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 2/26/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright. Here's my +1 binding. Let's put the nail in this coffin.
Dennis Byrne
On 2/26/07,
On 2/26/07, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 non-binding
Just as a procedural note, the only votes that PMC members have
binding votes on is releases. For technical issues (like this one),
all committer votes are not only binding, but a -1 (supported by
adequate reasoning) is a
17 matches
Mail list logo
