Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> Hi Carsten:
>
> Third time I will write the same here. Not your fault.
:)
> I don't like the idea to switch to log4j as the default
> implementation. I was researching how to set in log4j the
> file paths to WEB-INF/logs for any servlet and I don't found
> a right answer. There were worksrounds, but no an elegant
> solution as in LogKit.
>
Ah, that's right. I was looking at that some time ago as well
and didn't find it. Ok, we can research this.
> I found this interesting mail in log4j. The explanation is
> that LogKit is more oriented to IoC usage (Avalon). Quoting [1]:
>
> <quote>
> The only real difference I see is the philosophical one of
> how Loggers should be obtained. LogKit was designed for use
> in frameworks where the principle of "inversion of control"
> is extensively applied. One implication of IoC is that
> components are passive, and interact with the outside world
> solely through their container. There is a well-defined
> component lifecycle. In Avalon, the first thing that happens
> to a component is that it is *given* a Logger. It doesn't
> request one through a static method like
> Logger.getLogger(".."), since that would break IoC and
> potentially cause a security risk (overhead-less security is
> one of IoC's benefits).
> </quote>
>
> I know the mail is already 3 years old. Can someone explain
> if this is diferent now?
>
No, ..eh...yes. If you're using log4j the way log4j tells
you to do, this is still the same ugly way of getting a logger.
But, with Cocoon (or with Avalon components) it's still IoC.
Your component gets a logger which might be a log4j logger
(or anything else).
> My main concern is that in log4j you need to write an
> "absolut path" for the log file. For me this is a step back
> on what we have now. I really love the idea to move the
> servlets to any location and not need to configure log file paths.
>
Yes, I agree that writing absolute paths is really bad. (I wouldn't
put the logs into WEB-INF/logs for production systems, but that's
another story).
> I will be glad if someone can explain or write a doc telling
> that I am wrong. I really wanted to use log4j, but not at any cost.
>
> Second concern on the list is performance. Already discused,
> but without a probe.
I think my suggestion covers this issue very well; there isn't
any dfference in performance then anymore.
>
> I prefer to have (as now) LogKit as the default logger.
>
Ok, accepted. So if we could solve the problem with the absolute paths
and the performance, I assume that you are not against it, right? :)
Thanks
Carsten
