Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
Because using commons-logging is not undisputed and log4j/jdk logging
would reduce the number of dependencies for a user
I agree. Lots of debate have already occured on this subject, and no
consensus reached. This simply shows this is a matter of taste, and
probably even passion. So there is no point in pushing one choice among
the users. I do have a favorite library too, but will neither say what
it is nor try to provide any argument for it.
Removing a dependency is always a good thing for a library that is
intended to be a building bloc for some higher level application.
Torsten Curd wrote:
> And I would argue that a library should be so robust that (at
> least preferably) it does not need any logging at all ...or if there
> is a problem you just debug it.
I also agree. Commons are quite low level components, they should be as
lighweight as possible. They should neither impose some framework to
work nor make any assumption on how they will be used. They should be
robust and simple enough to not need logging *inside* themselves.
Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
