commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] commons logging stubs [was Re: [jci] c#]
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:05:37 GMT
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 15:51 +0000, Mark Proctor wrote:
> We've been discussing the logging issue over in the Drools world. We 
> have decided not to fight against this, at some point or other as we 
> grow our capabilities and depend more on third party libraries we are 
> going to find a tool that insists on commons logging - so might as well 
> be now. Atleast JCI will only be used at  rulebase creation time and 
> won't touch any of the core code. But the idea of stubs sounds good, 
> especially if its small and users can just rip it into their own jars 
> and namespace and thus avoid extra external dependencies.

the required JCL core is very small in any case. 

the advantage of stubbing (and static binding in general) is that users
don't have to cope with the nightmare that are the various different
classloading concepts found in sun specifications over the years and
then try to work out what the implementation provided by container
vendor actually does in practise. 

dynamic binding may or may not (in theory) be capable of addressing the
required use cases but it's not reasonable for users to digest the
advanced classloader theory required to know which of the various copies
of JCL present in their various classloaders should be removed or

FWIW the actual Log interface isn't too bad. the more sophisticated
interface being developed by ceki as a JCL alternative plays better with
modern design ideas but there isn't anything wrong with the interface.
the problems arise with the gymnastics performed in order to get a log
implementation quickly in containers with complex classloaders.  

- robert

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

View raw message