On 3/24/06, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> An alternative is to use the 'no discovery, no plugins, no layers'
> implementation of commons-logging
> that we have in sandbox :-) - which just implements the commons-logging
> APIs
> hardcoding everything to java.util.logging. People wh
An alternative is to use the 'no discovery, no plugins, no layers'
implementation of commons-logging
that we have in sandbox :-) - which just implements the commons-logging APIs
hardcoding everything to java.util.logging. People who want log4j or another
logger can replace
the jar with the 'officia
On 3/23/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > Ok, I tested it by replacing my existing commons-logging-api in the bin
> > folder, and it doesn't behave as it was before. For some reason, it
> > doesn't seem to be using java.util.logging by default anymore (I have
On 3/23/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > hello one and all
> >
> > JCL 1.1 is now very close to being released. we've done a lot of
> > testing and spent a long time analysing the code base. we think we've
> > solved as many of the issues with the 1.0
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Ok, I tested it by replacing my existing commons-logging-api in the bin
folder, and it doesn't behave as it was before. For some reason, it
doesn't seem to be using java.util.logging by default anymore (I have no
other logging framework installed anywhere).
Forget it, I
robert burrell donkin wrote:
hello one and all
JCL 1.1 is now very close to being released. we've done a lot of
testing and spent a long time analysing the code base. we think we've
solved as many of the issues with the 1.0.x series of releases which
can be without breaking compatibility.
we're
