James Carman schrieb: > Does anyone mind if I start a 2.0 exploratory branch where we can look > into splitting JCL up into multiple modules? >
I think you're biting off a really big task here. SLF4J has strengths, but also weaknesses. There are some things it does better than commons-logging, but some things that it cannot do. I would therefore be against just duplicating SLF4J and calling it the "replacement" for commons-logging 1.1.x. There may be ways to improve commons-logging without losing the features that do make it different from SLF4J, but as I said before, this is a *big* task, requiring extensive knowledge of all the weird ways that environments use classloaders. And if you want to wander into the "i18n" area then you'll also need significant experience with multilanguage applications, etc. I would honestly recommend organising a team of half-a-dozen experienced developers and a wide beta-testing programme before messing with logging... Of course people are always welcome to experiment; I'm just pointing out that I would be personally very wary about releasing anything labelled as a "replacement" or "upgrade" for the existing commons-logging, and would need a lot of convincing before giving my personal +1 to such a release. One smaller task that might be worthwhile is to provide a "commons-logging-noop.jar" that just discards all logged input. That would be particularly useful as a compile-time dependency. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
