--- Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Logging
>
>
> > >
> > > This cripples the features of log4j, you can't
> use
> > > anything that makes log4j
> > > an amazing tool. It's like cutting log4j off at
> the
> > > knees.
> > >
> >
> > Well I don't know about that. The Logging
> component
> > supports the debug, info, warn, error, fatal,
> > isDebugEnabled, and isInfoEnabled methods of the
> Log4J
> > Category class, plus anything you can configure
> from
> > the log4j.properties file (which is a lot). I
> > wouldn't be surprised if most folks use exactly
> that
> > subset of Log4J.
> >
> > That's why I'm much more interested in consensus
> than
> > anything. Both tools do a good job of standard
> > logging. I'd settle for either.
> >
>
> Same for me *except* that the chosen solution need
> to be transparent if the
> log4j jar is not in the classpath ! ;-)
>
> > - Morgan
> -Vincent
>
So you favor the Logging component. :)
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
