Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> I have a preference fo juli. >> I can work with that. > >Is a dependency on JULI better than on common-logging? > >Or is there some confusion talking about JUL vs JULI?
I was assuming java.util.logging rather than Tomcat's logging library JULI. Mark > >Gary >> >>> IIRC, Tomcat has a bridge from juli to logging impl, >> It is actually the other way around. Tomcat uses a package renamed >> commons-logging hard-coded to output to juli by default. It provides >a >> package renamed full commons-logging impl as well for users that want >to >> use something else (usually log4j). >> >>> it would help to keep [pool] dependencies-less. >> That is a very big advantage of juli. >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
