Hi Jason
I totally agree.
I think we need to pick one simple logging interface and I think log4j
should be it - I see no value whatsoever in rolling our own again.
Why don't we try arrange for a 'log4j-micro.jar' distribution which offers
very basic logging features out of the box but is API compatible (using a
small subset of log4j's code) - then folk can switch out log4j-micro.jar to
logj4.jar and get the full version?
(Though at 60k maybe we already have log4j-micro.jar ;-)
James
From: "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [httpclient] log4j redux
> On 7/31/01 1:58 PM, "David Winterfeldt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I made a simple logging interface so I could switch
> > from standard out, the servlet log, log4j, or the sun
> > logging api (only standard out and the servlet log are
> > implemented). It isn't a complete logging interface,
> > but it is the general idea. If you want to look at
> > it, it is in cvs.
>
> There are 10 of them lying around jakarta, velocity has one, there's
> one in tomcat, yours, there was one in turbine. I do not see any
> benefit in using any of these interfaces over log4j. No simple
> logging interface is going to come anywhere close to features
> that log4j provides. It is 60k for the core bundle, but everyone
> needs logging and I think we should settle on something that
> is well tested and has worked for literally hundreds of projects
> already.
>
> In time it will probably come down to log4j or the Sun logging
> API and they work in a very similar fashion and it would not
> be hard to switch from one to the other because the semantics
> are so close and they are getting closer after Ceki pointed
> out some of the drawbacks of the logging API.
>
> We could also work on making a skeletal version of log4j that
> could be very small. I think we should work in this in the context
> of the highly successful logging project we already have instead
> of trying to roll yet another logging interface that is non-standard.
>
> > ValidatorLog (interface), DefaultValidatorLog
> > (Standard Out), HttpValidatorLog
> >
> >
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-struts/contrib/validator/src/share/com
/w
> > intecinc/struts/validation/
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- "Waldhoff, Rodney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>> As appeared to be generally agreed upon, HTTP
> >> client shouldn't
> >>> have dependencies with log4j
> >>
> >> Not that such a vote is particularly meaningful here
> >> (at least as I
> >> understand it), but I counted at least three +1s for
> >> the log4j support.
> >>
> >>> (Rodney, do you plan to revert that part of your
> >> latest patch ?)
> >>
> >> If I must. What I'd really like to do is replace
> >> with some lightweight
> >> (pluggable?) logging mechanism that is agreeable to
> >> everyone and supports
> >> log4j (and potentially other logging mechanisms as
> >> well). I think that
> >> would meet everyone's needs as I understand them.
> >> Failing that I guess we
> >> either rip out logging entirely or go back to
> >> stdout/stderr logging except
> >> provide a built-in way to turn it on and off via a
> >> property setting.
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>
> --
>
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
>
> http://tambora.zenplex.org
> http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
> http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
> http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
