commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] minimal jar vs api jar
Date Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:05:25 GMT
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 00:09 +1100, Torsten Curdt wrote: 
> On 20.01.2006, at 12:02, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > Re the proposed "minimal" jarfile:
> >
> > What exactly are the differences between this and the existing
> > commons-logging-api jarfile?
> Basically the implementations.
> It would be nice if you could satisfy the commons-logging dependency
> by just having the API jar in the classpath. But this also means no
> implementations and no configuration. Basically it should not log at
> all.

IMHO this is a different and distinct issue. the particular concern
which prompted this discussion was about dependency management for
downstream rebundlers. the api jar has enough in it to function
reasonably and so the particular issue can be resolved by adding more


> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/Jdk14Logger.class
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/LogFactoryImpl$1.class
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/LogFactoryImpl.class
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/NoOpLog.class
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/SimpleLog$1.class
> > org/apache/commons/logging/impl/SimpleLog.class
> Why? 

history :-/

>'s meant to be an API jar!?

i agree that the api jar we distribute has it's drawbacks but these
spring from fundamental choices which have been baked in by backwards

i've had chance to think over possible approaches to finding a home for
code that does what drools want. i think that the best approach would be
to create a separate component here in the commons. however, this isn't
my top priority right now so some one would need to step up if it's
going to happen any time soon...

- robert

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

View raw message