On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
good luck.
The only reason LogKit exists is because Ceki failed to address basic
concerns - namely security and performance. Neither can be bolted onto a
toolkit but designed in. I tried to get him to change these things, since
before he came to Apache until right up until a few weeks ago (when I found
out I was a vile parasite on the Log4j community).
> 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.
While you should adopt 1 single toolkit - it will never happen is my guess -
at least not until jdk1.4 is established
--
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
