commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject RE: [logging] release status
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:36:30 GMT
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:20 +0100, Boris Unckel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:40 +0100, Boris Unckel wrote:
> > > Just as suggestion:
> > > There are some commons-logging compile dependencies. The manifest allows
> > > proprietary entries. It would be nice to have names and versions for
> > > dependet jars in the jar.
> > 
> > There aren't actually any *mandatory* dependencies; JCL can run
> > stand-alone. The user *might* want log4j or *might* want
> > avalon-framework, but that's up to them.
> Sorry for not precise enough. I do not want to represent the runtime
> dependencies or all compiletime dependencies for a special case.
> The manifest should just represent against which APIs and their versions it
> was actually compiled.
> So if someone did not compile against avalon and just uses log4j - OK. The
> manifest represents just log4j and its version.
> Optional fulfilled dependeny => entry in the manifest
> Optional ignored dependeny => _no_ entry in the manifest

I don't quite understand what you mean. The JCL distribution is
*compiled* against all of the libraries it supports (about 5 of them),
creating the appropriate adapter classes. It is then shipped with all of
the adapters but none of those libraries, and the user provides
whichever one they want to use for a particular app.

Listing all of these libraries as "dependencies" seems misleading, as
JCL can run fine with none of them (using its internal SimpleLog or



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

View raw message