commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <>
Subject Re: [jci] commons-logging use Was: patches
Date Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:06:41 GMT
>> I really dislike the idea of a fork at this stage.
> Agreed. I'm trying to bring back a fork, so let's not make a third :)


>> As of the event model - it just feels a bit like
>> re-inventing commons-logging.
> I don't agree (this is why I've posted here, not under a [logging]  
> thread - I don't think this is about the relative merits of c-l).
> I think the compiler API warrants its own event listening  
> interface. Sure, the compiler outputs info warning and error  
> messages, but these are from the compiler and not the compiler API  
> which also has its info warning and error (and debug) logging  
> messages. And I think the API has some richer events - like when it  
> starts processing a certain file, for example.

That's true. It does make sense to integrate something like that.
(The ProblemHandler goes already in such a direction)

...but that does not cover the logging for jci itself.

We could remove the logging completely but I don't really
like the idea as it makes debugging more complicated.
Especially for the FAM it's sometimes really useful to see
what's going on under the hood.

> Note that we don't use c-l in Maven because Maven's classloader is  
> shared with the plugins and that was often a problem in Maven 1.x  
> (which did use c-l and log4j). Now while that doesn't mean the  
> compiler plugin can't use it via jci, it would be nicer to  
> implement the above jci event interface and log them using the  
> native Maven logging.

Sure, but IMO this is a separate thing.


View raw message