On 13 August 2018 at 20:01, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > As an end user of JUL in other projects, let me warn you that you'll miss a > lot of abstractions that log4j2 and slf4j provide. :)
But do they matter in this context? Or is JUL (+ adapter) good enough? > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 09:50, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I like Remko's suggestion, a nice application of the KISS principle ;-) >> >> Gary >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 07:58 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > If it was up to me I would use JUL in this particular case to keep the >> > library free of dependencies. JUL is reasonable since performance is not >> an >> > issue. >> > >> > Users that use a logging framework can redirect the JUL logging into >> their >> > log file with the JUL adapter of their logging library. >> > >> > But that’s just me. >> > >> > Remko >> > >> > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info >> > >> > > On Aug 13, 2018, at 21:05, Bruno P. Kinoshita < >> > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> wrote: >> > > >> > > I was thinking more about using that as an argument for using a logging >> > framework, but I think you are right. Probably slf4j/commons-logging + >> some >> > default binding, then allowing users to change the implementation. >> > > >> > > Perhaps slf4j + log4j? >> > > >> > > >> > > Bruno >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > From: Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >> > > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> > > Sent: Monday, 13 August 2018 11:55 PM >> > > Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > For new projects I would really avoid using Commons Logging. Ceki had a >> > point when he created SLF4J. >> > > >> > > >> > > The projects you mentioned that have a dependency on Commons Logging >> > were started before SLF4J (and perhaps JUL) were created, I believe. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info >> > > >> > > >> > >>> On Aug 13, 2018, at 18:22, Bruno P. Kinoshita < >> > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Right now that's where I am standing too. If adding a dependency to >> > log4j is a no-no, then I'd probably check if jul would be OK, or >> otherwise >> > maybe import just Log4J's LowLevelLogUtil into the project would work? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Commons DBCP, Commons Configuration, Commons Beanutils, Commons JEXL, >> > and Commons Validator. All of these have a compile dependency to Commons >> > Logging. So it wouldn't be creating a new precedent. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Commons Pool and Commons Compress have some optional dependencies, but >> > none for logging... maybe an optional dependency, with disabling the >> > logging by default **could** work? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Cheers >> > > >> > >> Bruno >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> ________________________________ >> > > >> > >> From: Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > >> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> > > >> > >> Sent: Monday, 13 August 2018 9:50 AM >> > > >> > >> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> If you want to avoid a dependency I would not create a custom logging >> > abstraction but just use JUL. Most logging libraries have JUL adapters so >> > clients can do the bridging on their side. >> > > >> > > >> > >> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves >> http://picocli.info >> > > >> > > >> > >>> On Aug 13, 2018, at 0:17, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >>> What I've seen done when trying to avoid a logging API dependency is >> to >> > > >> > >>> create a minimal logging API purely for framework use. This can have >> a >> > > >> > >>> default System.err style implementation, but the idea is to make it >> > easy >> > > >> > >>> (and performant hopefully) to bridge into the end user's choice of >> > > >> > >>> framework and configuration without actually requiring a real logging >> > > >> > >>> framework (at least until you want to use it in production). While it >> > seems >> > > >> > >>> overkill, the problem is that neither JUL nor System.err are >> > sufficient for >> > > >> > >>> logging. Even a simple API like Android's logging API can be good >> > enough to >> > > >> > >>> abstract it in a small library. >> > > >> > > >> > >>> For a look at the very simplest route, you can see how Log4j2 handles >> > > >> > >>> logging before any logging classes have been initialized. It's >> > basically a >> > > >> > >>> configurable wrapper around System.err: >> > > >> > >>> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-api/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/util/LowLevelLogUtil.java >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 09:12, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> You could also log to a pluggable print stream which could be sys >> err >> > by >> > > >> > >>>> default. Kind of like what JDBC allows. My bias is to Log4j 2 as >> well >> > :-) >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> Gary >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 08:00 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> There’s a couple of considerations about doing logging in a >> library, >> > but >> > > >> > >>>>> I’ll just mention a few: >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> * dependencies >> > > >> > >>>>> * performance >> > > >> > >>>>> * ease of use >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> * Dependencies* >> > > >> > >>>>> Will the library be less attractive to users if it requires an >> > external >> > > >> > >>>>> dependency? Then don’t introduce one (so: use system err or JUL). >> On >> > the >> > > >> > >>>>> other hand, if the vast majority of usages is in a context with >> many >> > > >> > >>>> other >> > > >> > >>>>> external libraries (like in a web container) you have more freedom. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> *Performance* >> > > >> > >>>>> Please take a look at the log4j 2 performance page ( >> > > >> > >>>>> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html#tradeoffs). >> > > >> > >>>> Console >> > > >> > >>>>> logging is 50x (yes fifty times) slower than file logging. >> > > >> > >>>>> That’s a strong argument against system err logging. I’m not a fan >> of >> > > >> > >>>> JUL, >> > > >> > >>>>> but if you need to avoid dependencies you’re better off using JUL, >> > that’s >> > > >> > >>>>> only 5x slower than log4j. Also depends on how much logging you >> > expect to >> > > >> > >>>>> do in the worst case. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> *Ease of use* >> > > >> > >>>>> I’m biased and would say that Log4j 2 has the nicest and richest >> API. >> > > >> > >>>>> Console logging (System.err.printf) probably has the poorest API. >> > Other >> > > >> > >>>>> libraries sit in the middle. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> *Final note* >> > > >> > >>>>> I would never log to System out, always use system err instead. >> This >> > > >> > >>>>> allows programs using your library to pipe output to other programs >> > > >> > >>>> without >> > > >> > >>>>> their output getting mixed with your library’s diagnostic output. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> Hope this helps, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> Remko >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves >> > http://picocli.info >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> On Aug 12, 2018, at 21:21, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >> > > >> > >>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> Hello Bruno. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 08:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Bruno P. Kinoshita >> wrote: >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Hi all, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> I commented on IMAGING-154, but copying the last comment here as >> it >> > > >> > >>>>>>> contains the approach I would like to follow to fix the last >> > change in >> > > >> > >>>>>>> the project blocking >> > > >> > >>>>>>> a 1.0 release: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> --- >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> So went ahead to re-design the Debug class, in a way users could >> > > >> > >>>>>>> still enable/disable debugging, and also use a PrintStream so >> that >> > > >> > >>>>>>> other thing rather than System.out could be used. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Then, realized removing System.out was the natural next step. But >> > > >> > >>>>>>> alas, the library uses System.out for debugging, but sometimes it >> > uses >> > > >> > >>>>>>> it for writing to System.out in a "verbose mode". What is more >> > > >> > >>>>>>> complicated, is that sometimes classes methods like `toString()` >> > are >> > > >> > >>>>>>> calling debug methods that receive a PrintStream already. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> So I spent some more time quickly comparing what other libraries >> > I've >> > > >> > >>>>>>> seen being used / or used for image processing: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> >> > >> https://kinoshita.eti.br/2018/08/12/use-of-logging-in-java-image-processing-libraries/ >> > > >> > >>>>> . >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Turns out only very low level libraries, such as the JNI bridge >> for >> > > >> > >>>>>>> OpenCV, im4java, and Java's ImageIO can do with just throwing >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Exception's. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> All other libraries have one way or another of logging. Be it >> with >> > > >> > >>>>>>> JUL, SLF4J, custom loggers, or with the ol' System.out/err. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> My preferred compromise for this ticket was to keep Debug, making >> > > >> > >>>>>>> System.out possible but optional, and mark the class internal >> only. >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Now my preferred solution is to keep the Debug internal, but add >> a >> > > >> > >>>>>>> logger to it. And then also add logging to replace where >> > System.out is >> > > >> > >>>>>>> used for the "verbose" mode. >> > > >> > >>>>>>> --- >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Any thoughts? Objections? If none, I will try to work on this >> issue >> > > >> > >>>>>>> next weekend, making the Debug class internal only, and replacing >> > > >> > >>>>>>> System.out by a logging utility. After that, we should be good to >> > > >> > >>>>>>> start preparing the vote for 1.0. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> * I know it's hard to get a consensus on having logging in >> Commons >> > > >> > >>>>>>> components, as we have normally low level libraries, where using >> > > >> > >>>>>>> logging is not always practical. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> There are Log4j2 experts reading here. It would be interesting >> > > >> > >>>>>> to hear them about what is practical or not. There are several >> > > >> > >>>>>> aspects to "practical": simplicity, flexibility, compatibility, >> > > >> > >>>>>> performance, ... >> > > >> > >>>>>> How does Log4j2 fare in these areas? >> > > >> > >>>>>> Is there a known (through experience) limit in where it should >> > > >> > >>>>>> be used? >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> But I would now argue that Java own >> > > >> > >>>>>>> ImageIO is low level. But ImageJ2, Processing, OpenJPEG, and >> > Commons >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Imaging are located at a higher level, some times even using it >> for >> > > >> > >>>>>>> basic image handling/parsing/reading. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> As with many discussions on this list, conflicting arguments occur >> > > >> > >>>>>> because people lack common (!) definitions. >> > > >> > >>>>>> So one goes: "You cannot do <something> in a low-level component" >> > > >> > >>>>>> but does not define "low-level"... >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> * Feel free to cast a counter-argument for it, but please think >> > > >> > >>>>>>> whether you'd still be -0, +0 for this change. We have delayed >> 1.0 >> > for >> > > >> > >>>>>>> a while, so if you have a strong opinion on not adding a logger, >> > > >> > >>>>>>> please provide an alternative for IMAGING-154. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Otherwise we may fail >> > > >> > >>>>>>> to prepare a 1.0 release yet again, and then somebody else may >> > have to >> > > >> > >>>>>>> work on it in a few months/years... >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> We are there because the project is too rigid about itself as >> > > >> > >>>>>> a whole (cf. for example the [RNG] thread about BC). >> > > >> > >>>>>> IMHO, it's not the always least common denominator that is the >> > > >> > >>>>>> best decision... >> > > >> > >>>>>> As you noticed, components most easily stall in their development >> > > >> > >>>>>> for lack of proper review, or risk acceptance (i.e. assume that >> > > >> > >>>>>> those who are closer to the code (at a given time) probably know >> > > >> > >>>>>> best... :-/ >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> My opinion is that we can take the risk to introduce logging, and >> > > >> > >>>>>> if people complain somehow, take it back later. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> one possible compromise for this, >> > > >> > >>>>>>> might be i) make Debug internal, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> +1 >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> [Hmm... Does "internal" mean that minor release can break BC >> > > >> > >>>>>> on such a class?] >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> ii) remove all System.out calls, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> +1 or >> > > >> > >>>>>> -1 >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> [Depends on what "low-level" means here. "stdout"/"stderr" is >> > > >> > >>>>>> indeed used in low-level utilities but is the intent the same >> > > >> > >>>>>> here?] >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> which means removing the verbose flags, the checks, and calls to >> > > >> > >>>>>>> System.out in there. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> It would be a loss of potentially useful information (e.g. for >> > > >> > >>>>>> debugging). >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> Regards, >> > > >> > >>>>>> Gilles >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Thanks! >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Bruno >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> ________________________________ >> > > >> > >>>>>>> From: Bruno P. Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> >> > > >> > >>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 11:30 PM >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Hi sebb, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Another aspect of debugging is ensuring that methods are small >> and >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> easily tested independently. >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> However this is difficult to do, and care must be taken to >> ensure >> > > >> > >>>> that >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> the public API is not unnecessarily extended.. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> A very good point. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> The parsers in commons-imaging expose some #dump... methods >> > > >> > >>>>>>> ( >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/ImageParser.java#L794 >> > > >> > >>>>> ). >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> While I can see that parsers may need to dump the data they are >> > > >> > >>>>>>> holding in some structured way for inspecting, reporting, >> > serializing, >> > > >> > >>>>>>> etc, it looks like some other classes were affected by it too. >> For >> > > >> > >>>>>>> example... >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> A JPEG Segment has a #dump() method >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/formats/jpeg/segments/Segment.java#L34 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> which gets defined in each subclass of Segment. It can be >> confusing >> > > >> > >>>>>>> to have a method such as #dump() in a Segment, from the point of >> > view >> > > >> > >>>>>>> of someone writing a photo editor for example. The user could use >> > that >> > > >> > >>>>>>> to pass his/her own logger's PrintWriter, which would make >> > removing or >> > > >> > >>>>>>> changing logging in the future in commons-imaging. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> If we keep the Debug class, and make it internal, there would >> still >> > > >> > >>>>>>> be these methods to take care. And there are some methods where >> > users >> > > >> > >>>>>>> can provide a PrintWriter, while others instead use System.out >> > > >> > >>>>>>> (e.g. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/FormatCompliance.java#L70 >> > > >> > >>>>> ). >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Cheers >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Bruno >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> ________________________________ >> > > >> > >>>>>>> From: sebb <seb...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > >>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>; Bruno P. >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br> >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 11:06 PM >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> On 6 February 2018 at 09:52, Bruno P. Kinoshita >> > > >> > >>>>>>> <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Hi Jorg, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> I'd be fine with that solution too. I think this one would cause >> > the >> > > >> > >>>>> smaller change to the code as is. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> I believe my preference is still to remove the Debug class. But >> > > >> > >>>>> between logging and making Debug internal only, I'd choose making >> it >> > > >> > >>>>> internal. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> +1 >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> I think making it internal means it can still be dropped later. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing what others think about these >> options. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>> Another aspect of debugging is ensuring that methods are small >> and >> > > >> > >>>>>>> easily tested independently. >> > > >> > >>>>>>> However this is difficult to do, and care must be taken to ensure >> > that >> > > >> > >>>>>>> the public API is not unnecessarily extended.. >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Bruno >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> From: Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> To: dev@commons.apache.org >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 9:24 PM >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Hi Bruno, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> if it might also be helpful to our users, why not keep and >> provide >> > > >> > >>>> it. >> > > >> > >>>>> As >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> I understand it, the Debug class is a tool helping in >> development >> > to >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> analyze some behavior. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Nothing stops us from declaring this class internal (we might >> even >> > > >> > >>>> put >> > > >> > >>>>> it >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> into a package "internal" or "debug") that might be changed >> > without >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> further comment. Nobody may rely on it in production code, but >> > during >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> development it might be helpful. With such an approach we might >> > not >> > > >> > >>>>> have >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> a need to find a better interface to provide this functionality. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Just my 2¢, >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Jörg >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Am Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:20:58 +0000 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Hello, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> If memory serves me well, some time ago we had a discussion >> > around >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> sanselan & commons-imaging 1.0. One of the issues with >> > > >> > >>>> commons-imaging >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> 1.0 was the Debug class. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-154 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I finished the pull request, but Gilles raised an important >> > point, >> > > >> > >>>>> about >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> discussing other alternatives first. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Initially I am against logging in low level libraries, >> especially >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> commons components. But some time ago I had to debug TIFF >> issues >> > in >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> commons-imaging, and having the dump methods was a tremendous >> > help. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> The issue is that some imaging algorithms/processing have a lot >> > of >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> variables that can be altered. And keeping an eye on all of >> them >> > in >> > > >> > >>>>> the >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> debugger can be quite hard - though not impossible. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> So all in all, now I am more confident to proceed without the >> > Debug >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> class. But some users could have a hard time investigating >> > possible >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> issues in the library without seeing what's going on within the >> > > >> > >>>>> library. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> IMO, that could be solved with the logging/dump features... or >> > > >> > >>>>> through a >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> better design, especially around exception handling/throwing. >> The >> > > >> > >>>>> latter >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> is my preferred approach. Instead of logging, I prefer - >> whenever >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> possible - that low level libraries throw exceptions and let me >> > > >> > >>>> handle >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> the logging. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> So, any thoughts? :) I'm +1 to remove the Debug class, and +0 >> to >> > a >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> logging added to commons-imaging. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Bruno >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> > > >> > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>> -- >> > > >> > >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > >> 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 >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > 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 >> > >> > >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
