You are correct, it delegates the actual logging to a logging engine, currently either Log4j, Logback, java.util.logging or to SLF4j. (*Chris*)
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlen...@apache.org>wrote: > @Chris > Do I get it right - Onyx is just logging facade not the full-blow > logging library? > > 2014-05-17 8:52 GMT+02:00 Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlen...@apache.org>: > > Some were already addressed, another thing is that across the > > framework we are using different semantic inside logging messages, ie: > > "Value [#0] was excluded by pattern [#1]" and re-writing all these > > doesn't make sense. Right now XWork logging facade is very thin - one > > class implementing Logger interface and another implementing > > LoggerFactory - the rest is delegated to given logging library. > > > > Besides that, users don't care what kind of logging library framework > > is using - till it doesn't interfere with the one used in their apps > > or clashes with logging layers from other frameworks. Switching > > entirely to SLF4j can break few apps and we'll get a lot of complains > > why (not the first time ;-) > > > > My plan looks like this: > > - add checking if given log level is enabled inside logging methods > > - start migrating code to the new semantic (removing if > (LOG.isXxxEnabled()) > > - migrate the rest of logging calls to use parameter substitution > > - (or start with this before previous step) use Onyx instead of > > current LoggerUtils > > - change order of discovering logging libs on the classpath and put > SLF4j on top > > > > > > Regards > > -- > > Łukasz > > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ > > > > 2014-05-15 23:14 GMT+02:00 Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com>: > >> What is your reluctance to using SLF4j. It seems like the right > technology > >> for the problem. > >> (*Chris*) > >> > >> P.S. ICLA on the way > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Lukasz Lenart < > lukaszlen...@apache.org>wrote: > >> > >>> 2014-05-14 21:51 GMT+02:00 Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com>: > >>> > Yes, we could use Onyx's interface mechanism, but I think SLF4j's is > >>> > probably more stable and definitely more supported. So I'd probably > >>> > recommend that we extract the SLF4j support object and use it > directly > >>> (or > >>> > at least make it the default). If it's something that you're > interested > >>> > in, I'd have to fill out the forms to become a committer on Struts. > >>> Where > >>> > would I find that information? > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if this the right move, switching to SLF4j over our > >>> custom solution. Please can we explore this topic a bit? > >>> > >>> The first step to become a committer is to fill ICLA > >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> -- > >>> Łukasz > >>> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >>> > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >
