Not much development on log4j, I agree.  But all the features I
needed, I've implemented them in pax-logging, so that's not really a
problem for me.

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 16:01, Andrei Pozolotin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> re: why logback:
>
> because log4j is abandon ware
>
> you can listen to what the author
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceki_G%C3%BClc%C3%BC
>
> has to say
> http://beta.parleys.com/#id=2288&sl=0&st=5
>
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re: paxlogging road map: logback?
> From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> To: General OPS4J <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon 23 May 2011 12:57:34 AM CDT
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to