On 10/01/2008, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > an interesting question for the newly founded commons-exec community - > the original code from commons-exec comes with a helper class to pump > stdout/stderr of the created process into the Commons Logging library > thereby introducing a non-optional dependency. > > I changed the code to use stdout/stderr per default to make > commons-logging an optional dependency but the question remains - should > we support logging libraries within commons-exec? > > +) doing so makes the library easier to use but harder to maintain
Why is it harder to maintain? > +) if we support commons-logging we might also need JDK logger, log4j > and avalon-logger Why? > +) we could completely remove a dependency > +) I refactored the code (locally on my box) so that adding a new > logging library is a peace of cake (overwrite one method from a base class) s/peace/piece/ Can you explain the recipe please? > So I lean towards removing the commons-logging related code completely > and provide documentation how to attach the logging library of your choice Depending on the recipe, that may be the way. > Any comments > > Siegfried Goeschl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
