>>>> Does anyone mind if I start a 2.0 exploratory branch where we
>>>> can look
>>>>
>>>> into splitting JCL up into multiple modules?
Actually I have also been thinking of starting a JCL 2.0
It would be a chance to fix the bad reputation.
>>> I think you're biting off a really big task here.
>>>
>>> SLF4J has strengths, but also weaknesses. There are some things
>>> it does
>>> better than commons-logging, but some things that it cannot do.
>>> I would
>>> therefore be against just duplicating SLF4J and calling it the
>>> "replacement" for commons-logging 1.1.x.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I only plan on changing the discovery part. Currently, I think
>> we just do something like this:
>>
>> 1. If log4j is there, use that.
>> 2. If not, if jdk4 logging is available use that.
>> 3. If not, then try avalon logkit, etc.
I think the whole JCL problem is that it does to much. I would be all
for doing something much more simple.
That'd be e.g. - no discovery at all.
Will it in the end be similar to SLF4J - probably somewhat.
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
|