commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: [Logging] How can I submit a concrete Log implementation (WLSLogger)?
Date Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:31:33 GMT
Richard Sitze wrote:

> I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now...
> Anyone adverse to me starting that process in commons-logging?
> Specifically, build commons-logging as a set of components:
>     commons-logging.jar           (as today?)

And marked 'deprecated' if possible ( as a jar ). 
As I said, it creates a lot of problems. The user should 
use the -api and one of the loggers.

BTW, I already made a proposal ( long ago ) about supporting
JMX ( not with a direct dependency, but via bean setters and
modeler ). That would mean the adapters will have some 
config methods that could be exposed via JMX. 
Even if this is not accepted, it should be possible to have
it developed in a separate package/jar.

>     commons-logging-api.jar       (JUST o.a.c.l.Log & o.a.c.l.LogFactory)
>     commons-logging-log4j.jar     [including appropriate
> META-INF/services/org.apache.commons.logging.Log/LogFactory]
>     commons-logging-logkit.jar    [including appropriate
> META-INF/services/org.apache.commons.logging.Log/LogFactory]
>     commons-logging-jdk14.jar     [including appropriate
> META-INF/services/org.apache.commons.logging.Log/LogFactory]
> Of course, I'd like to begin the process of replacing LogFactory with the
> discovery code also.

I'm +1, but it should preserve backward compatibility.

Maybe we can do it at a later stage or in a LogFactory2 - so
the code would work even if discovery is not available/used.
I think the current hardcoded discovery, even if duplicated and
not as complete as commons-discovery - does work reasonably well.


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

View raw message