logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject JULI proposal
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:24:22 GMT
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  

Do you think that the code would need to go through the Incubator  

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