commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:16:13 GMT

On 3 Jan 2005, at 17:03, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> At 05:53 PM 1/3/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> nope (but don't ask me to find the references). distributing an api 
>> jar which requires runtime dependencies was a mistake. this issue 
>> hasn't arisen for quite a while since we try to keep quiet about the 
>> existing of the api jar.
>
> I do not understand. How can JCL *not* require runtime dependencies 
> given that it is a wrapper around various logging APIs? In other 
> words, how can JCL wrap API x without runtime dependencies on API x?

a minimal core should have robust behaviour when deployed without any 
support (rather than die horribly). for example, IIRC log4j prints up a 
message to System.err and then silently swallows all messages when it 
cannot configure itself.

JCL core should do something similar (though i'd advocate logging fatal 
- and possibly error level messages - to System.err for the reasons 
explained well in james strachan's blog 
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/2004/10/06.html).

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message