Does anyone mind if I start a 2.0 exploratory branch where we
can look
into splitting JCL up into multiple modules?
Actually I have also been thinking of starting a JCL 2.0
It would be a chance to fix the bad reputation.
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.
Well, I only plan on changing the discovery part. Currently, I think
we just do something like this:
1. If log4j is there, use that.
2. If not, if jdk4 logging is available use that.
3. If not, then try avalon logkit, etc.
I think the whole JCL problem is that it does to much. I would be all
for doing something much more simple.
That'd be e.g. - no discovery at all.
Will it in the end be similar to SLF4J - probably somewhat.
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
