Andrey, Agree, it is better to use JUL logger directly without Ignite wrapper.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Andrey Kornev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Vladimir, > > Maybe it'd be better to just use JUL logger directly? > > Or, better yet, just get rid of that nagging patronizing warning on line > 434 (the only reason the logger is created in the first place) altogether > and instead optionally throw an IAE? > > Or, include a dummy config/java.util.logging.properties with > ignite-indexing distribution (under META-INF, perhaps) just to keep > JavaLogger happy? > > Cheers > Andrey > ------------------------------ > *From:* Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 9:03 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: IgniteJdbcDriver's usage of JavaLogger > > Hi Andrey, > > What kind of fix do you suggest? > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Andrey Kornev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Just curious if anyone knows why IgniteJdbcDriver class instantiates a > > JavaLogger() on line 410 rather than using the globally configured logger > > instance? > > > > I have an slf4j logger configured and with ignite-indexing module in the > > classpath, I get scary looking (albeit benign) message in my logs during > > startup: > > > > Oct 23, 2017 9:02:23 AM java.util.logging.LogManager$RootLogger log > > SEVERE: Failed to resolve default logging config file: > > config/java.util.logging.properties > > > > Shouldn't IgniteJdbcDriver be fixed? > > > > Thanks > > Andrey > > >
