On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> >>>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see >>>> use for old and older applications. >>>> That said, I just checked and saw tomcat is still using commons-logging: >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/build.xml >>>> >>>> Maybe Mark will comment here. >>> >>> Tomcat 6 (min JDK 5) will certainly stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x >>> Tomcat 7 (min JDK 6) will probably stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x >>> Tomcat 8 (min JDK 7) will - at the moment - look to upgrade to whatever >>> the latest version is. >> >> Just out of interest... why the love with Commons Logging and not for >> example slf4j? > > It was the best choice at the time and no-one has made a good argument > for changing. > > Tomcat used C-L to create JULI which is package renamed (to avoid > conflicts if a webapp uses C-L), hard coded to use java.util.logging and > has a custom LogManager that actually works properly in a > multi-classloader container environment - don't get me started on how > bad the default one is. > > There is an optional package that adds back in the (still package > renamed) full version of commons logging and provides an adaptor for log4j. > > So Tomcat's requirements are: > - easy to package rename (technically and legally) > - pluggable for multiple back-ends > - won't clash with anything a webapp does > > Commons Logging meets all of those requirements. Other logging > frameworks may also meet them but they'd have to offer an awful lot more > to justify the work that would be required to refactor JULI to use them. > It isn't as if there are any features missing in C-L that Tomcat > needs/wants.
Thanks for the insight. Maybe it would be interesting to change the targets of commons-logging. Currently it is in direct competition with slf4j (logging facade which connects to different other frameworks). And as that its pretty outdated and just of use for a few. But what if commons-logging would have the target to be minimal, easy to repackage and maybe does even provide a basic logging implementation. The other frameworks come up with a lot of features which often comes with a lot of complexity and sometimes a cost in performance. commons-logging could solve this. Christian > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
