commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <skitch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [logging] minimal jar vs api jar
Date Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:36:17 GMT
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 16:41 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 14:02 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: 
> >
> IMO the mistake was in creating API classes (Log and LogFactory) which
> could not be used independently. the static methods should delegate to a
> single LogFactory implementation. any tricks with classloaders should
> have been delegated to LogFactoryImpl. 
> 
> > However it looks
> > ok to me. Here's the contents from release 1.0.3:
> >
[snip]
>  
> > 
> > The only differences I can see between this and the proposed "minimal"
> > are:
> >  * add WeakHashtable
> >  * remove Jdk14Logger
> > 
> > Can't we just make those changes to the api jar?
> 
> +1
> 
> good point: the API jar started out with a lot less in. 

Can we get away with removing jdk14Logger from this jar?

I think we can; people who really want the jdk14logger can move to the
full jarfile. That's not really a "backwards compatibility" issue,
because they are already willing to overwrite a jarfile with a new one
if they are upgrading to 1.1.

Comments?

Regards,

Simon


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