> > Then what is the moptivation to want another logging implementation > > (using java logging)? > > Diversification is ok but I don't think it should be a goal on its own. > > The logging implementation of mmbase is plugable, so you need some > plugs, to specify in log.xml/class. There are several available already, > but this one was obviously missing. Being a java 1.4 product, I think > one would expect it to be able to log to java.util.logging, and this one > small little class would make that possible. I don't see why we would > not offer it, even if we would not make it default.
Adding it means that we will need to support it, and frankly I don't see a reason to move away from log4j. Its pretty powerful and I don't see added value to adding the java logging API. For a good rant about why not to use abstraction over abstraction, see http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/?anchor=the_apache_syndrome (in this case, specifically the 2nd entry). Johannes _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
