commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
Date Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:38:31 GMT

On 9 Dec 2004, at 23:18, simon wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 11:52, Martin Cooper wrote:
>> This sure doesn't sound like Commons Logging would be "an ultra-thin
>> bridge between different logging libraries" any more.
>> This sounds more like a different package altogether. IMO, we have
>> enough trouble as it is with some people resisting adding a dependency
>> on Commons Logging that the last thing I want to see is a bunch more
>> functionality - and size - added to this component.
> It looks to me like the changes will be just a couple of fairly simple
> new classes for globalisation, and a couple of trivial methods to
> support the JSR-47 "finer" log level. I don't think that's a big deal.
> The "repackaging" of the logging library to separate the "interfaces"
> from the log-library-specific adapters is something that has already
> been proposed on this list, and clearly will *reduce* jar file size
> (though add complexity by forcing users to deploy two jars instead of
> one).

the reason why this repackage has never happened is that (given the 
state of coupling of the current code) it caused many more problems 
than it was worth. i would like to see the package refactored so that 
the minimal compilation time code is completely separated from the 
implementation. however, i've also come to the conclusion that the only 
way to do this is by a radical move (one possible way to achieve this 
would be by using byte code engineering to perform the wiring).

- robert

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

View raw message