doesn't commons logging do just that? let you easily migrate between log4j & built in logging?
marc On 6/27/05, Chris Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've just finished converting JXplorer to use the built in java logging > framework. It is basically a cheap rip off of log4j and isn't as good (IMHO > :-) ) so the only reason to use it is because it's 'built in'. Refactoring > from the java.util.logging to log4j is pretty easy if you change your mind > down the track, btw., but going the other way is a little more work because > log4j does some tricks that java.util.logging doesn't. > > I used the built in stuff for JXplorer because it means you can reuse the > classes in other projects more easily - you don't have to worry about adding > the log4j jar. There's a bunch of utility classes in JX that I and others > want to use in other projects. However if you're not so concerned about > code reuse, log4j is better. And log4j is an apache project now, so it's > not even '3rd party' :-). > > - Chris > > P.S. For people who are really in to this stuff, the two logging systems > are close enough in spirit that you can probably map between the two types > of configuration files - as far as I can see java.util.logging is a subset > of log4j. This could conceivably be useful in shops that are already wedded > to one system or the other. Implementation is left as an exercise for the > student :-). > > > On 28/06/2005, at 10:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: > > Hi folks, > > As you know JDK 1.4 provides logging framework out of the box. Will we have > to use this default package, or use 3rd party ones like Log4J? We're more > familiar with Log4J than we're with JDK logging framework, but I think it > would be also a good idea to use the default one because it is always there > as long as we work with JDK 1.4+ and it is not bad actually IMHO. > > Trustin > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ >
