On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:32 AM, David Leangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I thought you said just a short while ago (can't find quote, or
> maybe it was just hearsay) that Log4j sucks and that you want to
> implement your own logger in Qi4j?
Uh, what does this got to do with Qi4j??
Qi4j is challenging every angle of Java development. The list is long;
* Logging is completely misunderstood, faulty designed and applied.
* Getters and Setters are NOT properties.
* Separation of storage and indexing.
* Build the framework Top-Down.
* Classes suck.
* Object-Oriented is actually Class Oriented.
* Configuration and Assembly are two very different things.
and probably a lot more.
So, in Qi4j, there is a separation of Tracing, Debugging and Domain
Logging. Tracing is a switch, Debug logging has its own granularity,
and Domain logging can not be disabled in hierarchies. Once you start
looking at that, then all existing APIs looks silly...
>> PaxLogger is a bridging class between the Pax Logging API and the Pax
>> Logging Service. Not something expected to be used directly (since I
>> don't want to promote Yet Another Logging API).
>
> Damn. Didn't know this. I already went ahead and started using PaxLogger
> as my API. That's why I couldn't understand the dependency on KFLog
> (it's super class).
Huh??? What are you talking about?
public interface PaxLogger
public class PaxLoggerImpl
implements PaxLogger
Where do you get this "KFLog" from??? KF calls their convenience class
"LogRef" and is effectively a Tracker and API class wrapped together.
> The docs say that OSGi logger sucks... so what would you recommend,
> then? I'm not really interested in creating a dependency on any of the
> other sucky loggers, for future compatibility.
As Guillaume mentions, SLF4J is probably the safest bet. JCL is also
fine, but if you leave Pax Logging you might have problems.
Cheers
Niclas
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.ops4j.org
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
