You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> on 2005/06/24 07:22:31 UTC
Re: svn commit: r190899 -
/jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 11:35 +0000, skitching@apache.org wrote:
> Author: skitching
> Date: Thu Jun 16 04:35:22 2005
> New Revision: 190899
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=190899&view=rev
> Log:
> Minor cleanups.
>
> Modified:
> jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml
>
> Modified: jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml?rev=190899&r1=190898&r2=190899&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml (original)
> +++ jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml Thu Jun 16 04:35:22 2005
> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
> <pathelement location="${logkit.jar}"/>
> <pathelement location="${avalon-framework.jar}"/>
> <pathelement location="${conf.home}"/>
> + <pathelement location="${servletapi.jar}"/>
(sorry: i haven't caught up with all the JCL emails yet. hope to do so
this weekend.)
i'm very unhappy with the introduction of the servlet API as a full core
dependency. IIRC i stated before that this has a very detrimental effect
on dependency management tools. i strongly believe that JCL's core
dependencies need to be kept to a minimum.
is there any good reason why this should not be made optional?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r190899 -
/jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/build.xml
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 06:22 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i'm very unhappy with the introduction of the servlet API as a full core
> dependency. IIRC i stated before that this has a very detrimental effect
> on dependency management tools. i strongly believe that JCL's core
> dependencies need to be kept to a minimum.
This is an optional dependency, in that servletapi is only needed if the
user chooses to use the ServletContextCleaner class - and they will
obviously only be doing that if servletapi is already available.
Can you give me a link to the sort of "dependency tool" that you mean?
We already do this, eg by shipping Log4JLogger class without log4j.
The actual dependency is simply to two interface definitions:
ServletContextListener
ServletContextEvent.
This class is therefore very version-independent; it would be a truly
significant change for either of these interfaces to change.
> is there any good reason why this should not be made optional?
An optional jar is a nuisance to handle. It's a nuisance for us and a
nuisance for the user. The class itself is 893 bytes in size - hardly a
concern.
Personally I would like to do away with the optional jar completely, by
moving the WeakHashtable into the core and deleting the MemoryLogger
class. It's less stuff to explain to the user.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org