On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
What do you have against JUL? I've used it and in my company (which is quite a large one btw) we've moved to JUL just because it's so easy to configure, comes already with the JDK and very intuitive. Perhaps it has some shortcomings which I'm not aware of, and I hope you can point me at them.
See http://lucene.markmail.org/message/3t2qwbf7cc7wtx6h?q=Solr+logging (or http://grantingersoll.com/2008/04/25/logging-frameworks-considered-harmful/ for my rant on it!) Frankly, I could live a quite happy life if I never had to think about logging frameworks again!
As for JUL, the bottom line for me is (and perhaps I'm wrong): It doesn't play nice with others (show me a system today that uses open source projects which doesn't have at least 2 diff. logging frameworks) and it usually requires coding where other implementations don't. My impression of JUL is that the designers wanted Log4j, but somehow they felt they had to come up with something "original", and in turn arrived at this thing that is the lowest common denominator. But, like I said, it's a religious debate, eh? ;-)
As for logging, you and Jason make good points. I guess the first thing to do would be to submit a patch that adds SLF4J instead of infoStream and then we can test performance. It still amazing, to me, however, that Lucene has made it this long with all but rudimentary logging and only during indexing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
