commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [CLI] new design possibly?
Date Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:33:04 GMT

Henri Yandell wrote, On 06/02/2003 11.18:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>One point that we would like to see is that commons logging is never a
>>>*hard* dependency. That means that if commons logging is not in the
>>>classpath, the package should be able to work correctly, even if with
>>>logging disabled.
>>Please justify this. Is it solely because you have people who refuse to go
>>near commons-logging, or is there a technical reason?
> I'm just funked. Ignore this.

Naa, you are right, I have to justify it.

The fact is that Commons Logging does not advocate IOC, Inversion of 
Control, that is so dear to us. And also that IMHO these small packages 
should not log by default, since logging in these cases is not a runtime 
requirement as in server applications but a debugging and development 

It's ok if it uses Commons Logging, as long as it's not a hard 
dependency. I think it's a good common ground, and it's what is done ATM.

I have personally committed Commons Logging in POI, and made it not 
break the usage of the jar if not present, so should make it clear what 
I think of the usage of Commons Logging in the scenario of reusable 


Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

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

View raw message