commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34185] - Requirement: Combine JCL and UGLI
Date Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:43:51 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34185>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34185





------- Additional Comments From hoju@visi.com  2005-03-26 05:43 -------
Hmmm....

I mentioned something very similar, only exactly opposite, in my email response
to Simon Kitching.

This...
public interface ULogger extends org.apache.commons.logging.Log

Becomes this...
public interface org.apache.commons.logging.Log extends ULogger


It doesn't make sense for a logging implementation which commons-logging wraps,
such as Log4j, to have a dependency on commons-logging itself, which it would by
its implementation of UGLI.  Having commons-logging implement UGLI (or whatever
name it ends up as) also solves an issue with coordination of projects.  Simon
Kitching mentioned that it will be 2 or 3 months before JCL 2.0 becomes more
than an idea.  UGLI exists now, Log4j implements it, and Log4j-1.3 is
tentatively scheduled to be released around the time where JCL 2.0 will be just
getting off the ground.  The JCL team also has requirements such as backward
compatibility and the extension of their own API with new functionality.  If we
can all agree on a base logging API, then everyone can simply agree to implement
it and take as much time as they want.  Existing API's shouldn't have to change
much (if at all) and extention of the API's can be done at will.

A change like this would allow commons-logging users the option to either
continue to use the JCL API or move to the UGLI API.  In the case where they
choose the UGLI API, they can choose any implementation that implements the UGLI
API, including Log4j, JCL, NOP, Simple, and even choose an UGLI wrapper such as
the UGLI JUL wrapper implementation.  All API's become compatible and users can
choose which implementation of UGLI meets their needs the best.  I don't think
anyone loses here.

UGLI can stay "UGLI" or become something like "Apache Logging API, or "ALAPI". 
Whatever name is chosen, the point is that its interface becomes the standard
for everyone.

Thoughts?


Jake

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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