commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: Resisting the temptation
Date Fri, 10 May 2002 14:51:43 GMT
At 07:29 10.05.2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Ceki,
>I can give you a quick solution - use XmlMapper from tomcat3.3.
>It's doing the same thing, works with JDK1.1, no external dependencies
>( except IntrospectionUtil - where all the real stuff happens ). It is
>quite optimized and tuned and polished.

I am not that much worried about the effort it would take to code
a digester clone, especially if the relevant authors (including yourself)
have given explicit permission to modify an existing implementation.
In short, it would take little effort to take commons-digester: change
the package names to org.apache.log4j from org.apache.commons.*,
remove unneeded Rules, remove the commons-logging references, change
the dependency on beanutils and collections and we're in business.
The down side is that jakarta would have two actively supported digesters,
the one in commons and the one in log4j resulting in significant maintenance
effort being wasted.

So while your offer to use the XmlMapper is generous, using it, is precisely
the temptation I am trying to resist. :-)

>The downside:
>- I no longer believe this is the right way to configure
>software or deal with XML configuration :-)

Aaaah? Can you please expand on this?

>BTW, having log4j depend on commons-logging would be a huge benefit for
>the whole community. I know it may be hard for log4j people, but sometimes
>we must make painfull things.

What would be the benefit of log4j depending on commons-logging to the
community? All I tend to see is more complicated bug reports and more
confusion on the user side. (I am afraid we have had this debate already.)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message