commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <tcu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [logging] minimal jar vs api jar
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:09:08 GMT

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.

> As far as I can see, commons-logging-api.jar has the Jdk14Logger class
> in it, but otherwise is dependency-free.

It's not the dependency that is the point.

Let's take drools as an example. They don't really want to use JCL
but they want to use jci. Now jci uses JCL. But they don't really
care about the jci logging. And even more important they don't want
to tinker with a JCL configuration. Basically they want the logging
to be removed or being a NOP operation in libraries.

Basically that was the idea for the minimal JCL. You use the minimal
one. In case you need the logging you can replace it with the full
one and configure JCL.

> 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? ...it's meant to be an API jar!?

> Can't we just make those changes to the api jar?

Sure, I would prefer to fix the API jar.

cheers
--
Torsten


Mime
View raw message