myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Winer <>
Subject Re: Loggers in API Components
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:19:48 GMT
On 12/6/05, Simon Kitching <> wrote:

> Is it really ok for stuff in the "api" and "impl" subdirs to depend on
> commons-logging?

AFAIK, yes.  Certainly for "impl", and I see no reason why not as well
for "api", as long as it doesn't actually show up in the
public/protected API.

> Does the spec say anything about dependency requirements for the JSF
> implementation? In particular, I'm concerned that j2ee.jar will
> apparently require a JSF implementation to be included in the future; if
> MyFaces is that implementation and it uses org.apache.* libs then those
> libs must also be bundled in the j2ee.jar file, or be bundled by every
> container that provides that j2ee file. And exposing libraries via the
> container like that can cause pain, as we all found out when a buggy
> version of org.apache.xerces was bundled with java 1.4 :-(

JSF 1.2 requires J2SE 5.0 (both annotations and generics).  And, yeah,
any full J2EE webtier server in EE 5.0 will necessary include a JSF
implementation - so, for instance, any Java EE 5.0 version of Tomcat
must include a JSF implementation.

JSF 1.1, well, in theory it would require JDK 1.3 at a minimum -
though there's no specific reason why any particular implementation
couldn't decide to make 1.4 the minimum.  (And I can't specifically
remember an API reason why it couldn't run on JDK 1.2 as well.)

But as far as logging goes, if you're willing to take JDK 1.4 as a
requirement (and I can't see why not), I find commons-logging a rather
pointless bonus dependency - log4j is not sufficiently better than
java.util.logging to justify its use, and if you're only ever going to
use java.util.logging, what's the point of going through an

Total agreement with Travis that logging in the components is a very good thing.


View raw message