ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Stevens <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Logging
Date Wed, 09 May 2001 02:34:31 GMT
on 5/8/01 7:24 PM, "Peter Donald" <> wrote:

> like you did with turbine? Where those interfaces/classes are larger, more
> complex and harder to maintain than an existing toolkit. Kind of defeats
> the whole purpose of having a logging toolkit maintained outside the
> project don't you think?

What are you talking about? Neither Turbine's or Velocity's implementations
are complex or hard to maintain, nor do they add any overhead to the system.

In fact, they are quite simple. The only time they are hard to maintain is
when *YOU* go and change the interfaces and break things. Yes people, this
has happened just recently.

In fact, one could argue that Log4J cares about backwards compatibility and
your LogKit doesn't and that we should use Log4J because at least I know
that it will work into the future and that Ceki understands the need for
deprecation. Something you have yet to show me.

FYI, adopting something like this across the entire Jakarta project would be


> why add complexity to ant when it is not needed?

It is needed because clearly some people want to use Log4J and others (ie:
you) want LogKit.

> People build toolkits to be reused - could you imagine everytime you wanted
> use JDOM you had to create a wrapper around it - and make it generic enough
> that it fit other similar toolkits. Stupid - yes I would have to agree.


What the heck do you think JAXP (or the proposed Logging API) is for? People
like the ability to swap out their XML parser (and logging implementation)
at will without needing to re-write their application.

So, my vote is that I'm strongly -1 on binding Ant to any specific logging
implementation, especially LogKit.


If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous

View raw message