Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Nicola,

>> Attributes is a bit quiet. I have a pending request to the list and 
>> CC the author about removal of commons-logging (it is only used for 1 
>> warning). I am plucking up courage to make teh commit.
>
>
> ;-))
>
> I'd commit it without remorse. Put yourself in the name of the 
> committers and commit it, it really makes no sense.

Gulp. I lack the karma. That despite putting in a marathon pairing 
session with James Strachan, Joe Walnes, Charles Lowell, and Mike Royal 
at TW head office.  James committer the patches other than the one 
Charles and I had done. A neat excercise in TDD and

> BTW, I'm still thinking about the logging thing.
>
> Imagine that we have all logging calls done like this:
>
>  //@log("hello log");

As a comment? Or a javadoc tag generates into some type of attribute, 
then conditionally aspected into action. Neat.

I am actually leaning towards no-logging. AltRMI now does not depend on 
any logger. It has a monitor that can be added, and logging can adapt 
from that.

> we would have logging disabled by default, but we can transform the 
> class to use logging when running, and even transform the log calls to 
> make them compatible with the logging toolkit we want to use. 

Not quite sure how, unless I hit it on the head above.

- Paul