Upside of switching to Logback, the official answer: http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
In my daytime work, I also changed the logging implementation of the project I work to use logback, being attracted by the SiftingAppender it offers, so we can separate logs for different batches of operation. Yeap, I also see Pax Logging has something similar, but still haven't managed to get it working (my own problem however :( ). The downside... oh, logback uses XML for configuration (even it supports properties placeholder like we do in Ant's build.xml, by inline definition or reading external files), if you don't use/like/know groovy. I too agree this is not good when log4j can use simple and minimal properties file for configuration. 2011/5/23 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > I think one purpose of pax-logging is that you don't have to choose > the front-end. All apis are supported. > We could split the apis in multiple bundles, but that would make > deploying pax-logging even more complicated. > I'm not really sure to see the advantages yet. > > As for logback, I've seen several requests over the past months > without any clear indication of what would be the benefits vs the > costs (which I see). Can someone enlighten me ? > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 02:08, Andrei Pozolotin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Niclas: > > > > Great; thanks for letting us know; > > > > I would not go with "the same PaxLogging API bundle." > > > > for all the modularity of osgi - PaxLogging is not modular at all; > > > > I would rather see it broken into more bundles with ability to choose > both > > front end api and back end providers; > > > > Thank you, > > > > Andrei > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: paxlogging road map: logback? > > From: Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> > > To: General OPS4J <[email protected]> > > Date: Sat 21 May 2011 03:53:10 PM CDT > > > > Hi, > > I might actually work on this, as I have some logback requirement at > > work. Can't promise a timeline for it though. > > > > The most straight forward approach is to create an alternative > > implemention, i.e. have a separate bundle which uses the same Pax > > Logging API bundle. Shouldn't be too hard. Could also take opportunity > > to think through the Configuration side of things a bit more cleverly > > than was for the Log4j implementation. > > > > Are there any Jira issues posted already around this? I welcome > > feature requests... > > > > Cheers > > Niclas > > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Andrei Pozolotin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Guillaume, hello again; > > > > can you please let me know if logback is on paxlogging road map? > > > > like, making logging back-end pluggable, so it can be either log4j or > > logback? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Andrei > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 > The Open Source Integration Conference > http://camelone.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
