> On Dec 16, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:48 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com > <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:36 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From the 10,000 ft level, within one app: >>>> >>>> - Log4j 2 configures itself by finding a log4j2.xml file. >>>> - Log4j 3 configures itself by finding a log4j3.xml file. >>>> - Both can co-exist happily >>>> - The bridge exercise can be done separately. >>> >>> No, no, no. Nobody wants more than one logging implementation active. >>> Nobody. And so far we haven’t talked about changing the logging >>> configuration syntax, nor do I see any reason to do that. So there is no >>> need for a log4j3.xml. >>> >> > > You don't get to choose. Some libs use JUL, some use Log4j, some cook up > their own thing and that's fine as long as the write log files get written > in the right places, as users expect. Just because Log4j is on the > classpath does not mean that all logging must go through it.
And your point is? Very few people want multiple logging configurations in their application. Finding one that doesn’t mind doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t solve for the 98% that do mind. Ralph
