[Biojava-l] JDK 1.4 in beta release

[Schreiber, Mark]

Hi-

Is it reasonable to include the Logging API? I am in two minds about this.

On the up side it gives good information for debugging and fine tunning
which can be nice for group projects and it can also let you know what is
going on inside those more complicated objects.

On the downside it tends to bloat the code and enforcing standards will be
difficult, also the task of retrofitting the legacy biojava with logging
information will be long and boring.

Any votes for or against?

Mark

Mark Schreiber
Bioinformatics
AgResearch Invermay
PO Box 50034
Mosgiel
New Zealand

PH: +64 3 489 9175

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Down [mailto:td2@sanger.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:17 PM
> To: Schreiber, Mark
> Cc: 'Thomas Down'; Humphrey Sheil; biojava-l@biojava.org
> Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] JDK 1.4 in beta release
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:00:55AM +1200, Schreiber, Mark wrote:
> > Maybe the biojava community should discuss when a change to 
> JDK1.4 is
> > desirable, maybe after version 1.2 is released future work 
> should be done
> > with JDK1.4??
> 
> That sounds potentially reasonable.  However, it ultimately
> depends on how quickly vendors release 1.4 ports.  Certainly,
> I'd want to wait until I'd seen ports for Tru64 Unix and Mac OS X.
> 
> To some extent, there's also the question of what API we'll
> really want to use.  There are some nice enhancements to the
> Collections APIs, and it might be quite hard to avoid those
> creeping in over time.  I'd guess BioJava is likely to switch
> to using the java.util.regexp package over time, rather than
> a 3rd party library.  It would be good if one of the 3rd parties
> shipped an implementation of the java.utils.regexp APIs, so
> we can switch over now.
> 
> We'll also want to switch to using the javax.xml APIs rather
> than explicitly depending on the Xerces parser like we do at
> the moment.  This can be done straight away, since the APIs
> are available as a separate JAR file for 1.2/1.3
> 
> Any other APIs people have their eyes on?
> 
>    Thomas.
>