logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JULI proposal
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:01:18 GMT
Besides agreeding with Curt's concerns, this seems unnecessary.  Why do it? 
Introducing yet another set of names, interfaces, classes is unlikely to be


--- Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:

> This is in regards to recently filed bug 36805 (http:// 
> issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36805).  If there has been  
> any previous discussion, I have missed it.
> All this information may be in attachments to the bug, but it would  
> be helpful to me if you provide some essential background information.
> What is the source of the initial submission?  Do you have clear  
> rights to donate the code to Apache Software Foundation?  Do you have  
> a Contributor's License Agreement (http://www.apache.org/licenses) on  
> file?
> Do you think that the code would need to go through the Incubator  
> (http://incubator.apache.org)
> How does this relate to GNU Classpath (http://www.gnu.org/software/ 
> classpath/) which provides independent clean-room implementations of  
> core class libraries and appears to implement java.util.logging?  The  
> GNU Classpath implementations take great care avoid potential legal  
> issues (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq3_2)  
> that we don't encounter.
> How would conflicts between the JDK provided implementation of  
> java.util.logging and JULI be resolved?
> SLF4J is not an Apache project and having an Apache product depend on  
> a non-ASF project is undesirable.  What is the nature of the  
> dependency on SLF4J?
> Is JULI an acronym?  If so, what is the full name?
> My initial reaction is that there are too many legal and licensing  
> issues to justify the project in light of only vague outlined benefits.

View raw message