On Dec 15, 2007 8:06 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 17:52 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
> >
> > I think, I'll use http://slf4j.org/ for the logger in commons.
> >
> > What do you think about that ?
> >
>
> [first, sorry for not replying in-thread. I can currently receive emails but
> cannot send them except via a web/interface. therefore, I cannot reply to any
> email I have already downloaded .:-(]
>
> The issue is that Trinidad (ADF faces) has always emitted
> internationalised log messages, by using its own logging implementation.
The trinidad logger wraps the JDK one.
It internally looksup a resourcebundle and with
getMessage("SomeKey",...) you get the translated
msg, which you put into methods like warning(String);
>
> But commons-logging does not offer any help for that. If code wants to emit a
> log message that can be internationalised, it looks like this:
>
> if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
> String msg = TrinidadMsgFormatter.format("SomeMsgKey", arg1, arg2);
> log.debug(msg);
> }
>
> This is certainly inconvenient.
>
> The slf4j equivalent looks like this:
> log.debug("SomeMsgKey", arg1, arg2);
> which at initial glance seems nicer.
>
> However there are a number of gotchas. The most important is how the
> resources are found to map (key, args) to a sensible message.
>
> If the underlying logging implementation is i18n-aware then SLF4j just passes
> the data on. But the underlying impl still needs to somehow know how to find
> the Trinidad resource bundles in order to create sensible logging messages. I
> don't have any experience with i18n-aware logging systems, so I'll leave that
> to others to comment on how easy/difficult it is to arrange that.
>
> But AFAIK if the underlying logging implementation is *not* i18n-aware, then
> the message written to the log will simply be "SomeMsgKey", with all info
> about the actual params lost. This, for example, is the default SLF4J
> behaviour when configured to forward messages to commons-logging or log4j.
> This seems unacceptable.
>
> So none of the three logging APIs seems tempting..
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
