Ralph Goers wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
-1
I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
(b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
1. logkit isn't exactly dead. It doesn't seem like it has any known
problems and it does what it was designed to do. Your statement implies
that once a project matures and fulfills its purpose that it should then
be abandoned because no new development is being done. That doesn't make
sense.
2. If there was a large concern, Cocoon could certainly fork its own
copy of logkit. I see no need for this though.
Seems like the Logkit situation is going worse with time. Until when we
will stay tied to this dead project?
How is it getting worse?
haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
to change it?
+1
Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
-1. Nothing has changed.
-0. I do not think this gives us any benefit. I had an issue once with
jetty 5.0 (which uses commons logging) + cocoon (with logkit) but now
the issue is gone and thanks to some kind of classloading magic that
cocoon did jetty is able to use SimpleLog and cocoon is using
LogKitLogger with no problem at all.
By the way: I like logkit.xconf much more that log4j xml configuration.
--
Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
