unless I'm missing something, solrj does not (at least should not) use
commons logging, but commons-httpclient does.
I have been in favor of moving to slf4j for a while:
http://www.nabble.com/logging---slf4j--td9366144.html
http://www.nabble.com/Changing-Logging-in-Solr-to-Apache-Commons-Logging-td9728394.html
In the past, the consensus has been there was no need to change it. I
think as more folks use solr as a .jar rather then the standard .war,
then JUL is not ideal.
ryan
On Apr 22, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Not too mention SolrJ uses commons-logging, so as it stands now Solr
uses two different logging mechanisms.
On Apr 22, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Anyone have good tips on working w/ java.util.logging (JUL)? For
one, the configuration seems to be per JVM, which isn't all that
useful in a webapp environment. http://www.crazysquirrel.com/computing/java/logging.jspx
has some tips for Tomcat, but I am using Jetty. Not too mention,
it seems, that if one wants to implement their own Handler, they
have to somehow figure out how to get it in the right classloader,
since the JVM classloader can't seem to find it if it is packaged
in a WAR.
I know logging is sometimes a religious debate, but would others
consider a patch that switched Solr to use log4j? Or, commons-
logging? I just don't think JUL is up to snuff when it comes to
logging. It's a PITA to configure, is not flexible, doesn't play
nice with other logging systems and, all in all, just seems like
crappy design by committee where the lowest common denominator won
out.
The switch is quite painless, and the former offers a lot more
flexibility, while the latter allows one to plugin whatever they
see fit. I will work up a patch so people can at least see the
options.
Cheers,
Grant
