On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> Subject: LOG4J
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Did we ever reach a consensus on whether or not to use LOG4J? I just
> > found a 5 page try block that's begging for it.
> >
> > - Morgan
> >
>
> That's a question I asked myself when I began writing Cactus. I had the
> options of :
> 1 - Use Log4j for logging information/debug messages/... But then it would
> mean that end users would also need to have the log4j jar
> 2 - Don't do any logging and only throw exceptions.
>
> I chose option 2 although I would have preferred option 1. But I thought
> that the cost of needing the log4j jar was going to add too much complexity
> and that Cactus was already complex enough not to have to support this
> additional complexity. Note that it is not *that* complex (it just means
> having the log4j jar ready and adding an additional jar in the CLASSPATH)
> but I have found that even having the correct jars in the classpath is not
> something that easy for end users .... :)
>
> Maybe I am wrong here. I'd lke to have your thoughts on that ...
>
> Thanks
> Vincent.
>
I don't know if just throwing exceptions is going to work for HttpClient
tho. It seems to have lots of places where it ignores errors, but one can
imagine that those errors should be logged somewhere if the user so
desires.
