The major issue with Log4j that I have is size... it is huge.  Commons is 
very small.  If Log4j has a 20k footprint (or smaller) for client usage an 
dprovided a simple method to disable logging, then I would see no need for 
Commons Logging.

Generally I am a pro-"just use log4j", but our own requirement for 
org.jboss.logging.Logger (for TRACE, removing need for huge jars on client 
and serialization) makes me wonder of the commons approache is really a 
better solution... backed by Log4j of course.

What were the specific CL issues you had witrh XDoclet?

--jason


On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, David Jencks wrote:

> Apparently several people have had trouble with jakarta-commons logging,
> including xdoclet; this got mentioned on their list:
> 
> http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.html
> 
> Personally I'd be in favor of unwrapping log4j and using it asis.  I'm not
> convinced that the debug/trace split buys us very much.
> 
> david jencks
> 
> On 2002.10.08 21:24:12 -0400 Jason Dillon wrote:
> > It is too bad commons logging does not provide abstractions for a
> > ContextStack or ContextMap similar to Log4j's NDC and MDC.  These are
> > valuable constructs.
> > 
> > Do you know anyone on the commons logging team?
> > 
> > --jason
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:jboss-
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James
> > Higginbotham
> > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:41 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Design: Plans to decouple JBoss from log4j
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Do you know how you switch the LogFactory impl?  I am
> > > > guessing there is a
> > > > system property, but I did not see anything obvious by looking at
> > the
> > > > javadocs.
> > > 
> > > I've been using commons logging for a few months now - not bad at
> > all..
> > > You drive the impl from a properties file called commons-logging, like
> > > so:
> > > 
> > >
> > org.apache.commons.logging.Log=org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog
> > > 
> > > If you put in log4j, just put the log4j properties or xml file in the
> > > classpath so log4j can initialize when needed. The nice thing about
> > > using this API is that they have done the factory work for you,
> > allowing
> > > jboss clients to use the simplelog they provide, a null log, jdk1.4
> > > (ugh), or whatever. Sure, you have that abstraction, but do you really
> > > want to do the simple factory work? Probably not, as you guys have
> > more
> > > important things to do ;)
> > > 
> > > James
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jboss-development mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jboss-development mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> 



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development

Reply via email to