myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred Geiler" <manfred.gei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Remove Static loggers from 1.2
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:00:36 GMT
-0.9 for removing commons-logging from jsf1.2 branch (now)

Explanation:
In the near future we will have to manage two "branches" that
originate from the same source: jsf 1.1.x and 1.2.x. Making massive
changes to the jsf1.2 codebase that are NOT alone based on jsf 1.1 and
1.2 spec differences are no good idea IMHO. This would make it much
more difficult to apply the same fix patche to both branches.

In the far future when we come to a point where we have the feeling
that the majority of code lines is different (ie. the two branches
went their own way and no longer have much common source) we can do
such changes in the jsf1.2 codebase. But not now please.

--Manfred



On 2/27/07, Grant Smith <work.grant@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for removing static, +1 for using java.util.logging. I'm also somewhat
> against using commons logging; what real benefit would it afford us ?
>
> On 2/27/07, Werner Punz <werner.punz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > good point if you can hook commons.logging (I know this is somewhat
> > insane because commons is just a meta logger)
> > below it, I do not know the core java logging api good enough
> > but every dependency we can remove is a + from me.
> >
> > Problem is if we cannot provide a path to hook commons logging into
> > it we get a huge clash with application and server vendors which
> > build upon that lib.
> >
> >
> > Mathias Brökelmann schrieb:
> > > +1 for removing the static.
> > >
> > > What is about java.util.logging? Can/Should we use it for 1.2?
> > >
> > > IMO it is better to use java.util.logging. Apart from the unusable
> > > default implementation for java.util.logging the reason not to use it
> > > in myfaces 1.1 was the dependency to java 1.4. But jsf 1.2 will only
> > > run with java 5 or higher. So that should not be the problem now. The
> > > default implementation should also not be a problem. IMO it is out of
> > > scope of myfaces. The container vendor is responsible to supply a
> > > better solution as it is done for tomcat. And even if that is not the
> > > case the user might plug its own implementation into
> > > java.util.logging.
> > >
> > > 2007/2/27, Dennis Byrne <dennis@dbyrne.net>:
> > >> Alright.  Here's my +1 binding.  Let's put the nail in this coffin.
> > >>
> > >> Dennis Byrne
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
>

Mime
View raw message