Thanks for the considered response Torsten.
a) Thanks for the pointer on log4j. I'll take a look.
b) java.util.logging has always worked just fine in my experience.
c) Less dependencies and if the extra jars were removed, it would imply
less indirection when logging, is always better, no?
d) Agreed (Of note, Hadoop isn't yet 1.0).
e) For j.u.l the appropriate JMX beans are part of the (Sun) JDK and its
just a matter of setting a flag starting the JVM to make the bean
available but yes, this is a minor point (especially if only the Sun JVM
supports this).
f) Pardon me, Torsten, are you saying a logging facade is inappropriate
(because it is not a library or framework)? Perhaps you are saying the
opposite?
Thanks,
St.Ack
Torsten Curdt wrote:
On 28.09.2007, at 19:23, Michael Stack wrote:
Reading the below (old) discussion of JCL vs SLF4J made me want to
ask if there is anyone out there who actually makes use of the fact
that logging goes via the commons-logging intermediary? If its not
being used, why not cut to the chase and use log4j directly or what
seems to be just as capable, native java.util.logging.
I seriously had enough of this logging debates at other projects so I
will just provide another few cents and then shut up :)
a) Everyone suggesting log4j must have never looked at the code :)
b) I only know people complaining about j.u.l (but never used it myself)
c) Not sure why it would make sense to save two jars on project like
hadoop (where you usually are not short of space in the dimension a
few KB on a machine)
d) Changing logging (facades) is not fun. Make sure to stick with one
ones 1.0 is out
e) Changing log levels via JMX also works quite straight forward with
other logging implementations (it's just that setting up JMX properly
is not)
f) Logging facades are more useful for libraries/frameworks
cheers
--
Torsten
