On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> Although I wish it was not necessary, it seems like if the Logging component
> gets voted down, we'll end up with no logging at all, not Log4J logging. I
> think that the Logging component is a reasonable abstraction, and I can't
> stand by and watch logging itself disappear. So I have to give the Logging
> component +1.
To reestablish the balance of votes, here's my -1 for the Logging
component :-)
Using "Logging" APIs instead of Log4J APIs, and requiring the "Logging"
component instead of Log4J component is _bad_. Log4j may have problems,
but it's reasonably easy to solve them - a simpler Category, fewer classes
visible to the user, etc. Instead of inventing another logger, we should
fix log4j. Or push Ceki to adopt some of the ideas in Logging and make
them available in log4j.
If we can't fix log4j, then we should look at LogKit. Or even better, we
can try an implementation of java.util.log - even if it'll be in a
different package, at least it'll follow the same patterns.
So if some people have "emotional" problems with log4j, I suspect far more
will have "emotional" problems with using a random Logging package. Or
maybe we can add a LogLoging package that will abstract Logging as well.
Costin
