I think we should stick with what we've got (log4j). They should in theory be pluggable, but this is Avalon's problem, not James.
-- Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenny Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 07 January 2003 16:12 > To: James Developers List > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Avalon dependance in mailets > > > Hi Jason, > > I don't know enough technically about about java.util.logging > and log4j > to really give a blow by blow of which is better. I've used > both, they > both worked fine, both seemed easy to use. I think I like > log4j better, > but that's not really a good enough reason for choosing one over the > other. I would probably lean towards log4j simply because > it's another > apache product. Any support we can give is good support. :) > > Kenny > > Jason Webb wrote: > > Logging is an interesting one. > > As far as mailet developers are concerned I think logging should be > > provided (by the container?). Everyone needs to log > something at some > > time, but DB access is not always required. My only real > problem with > > the current system is it's lack of fine control over the > logging. If > > James 3.0 will go to JDK 1.4 we could use the builtin > logging there. > > I'm not going to get into a logging system war here either :) > > > > > > -- Jason > > > > > > <snip'd> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
