commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] minimal jar vs api jar
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:47:54 GMT
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:36 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> 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?

should be ok but i'd feel better if we tested it. anyone fancy
volunteering to test the behaviour of JCL in this new configuration?

- robert


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