After thinking about it for a while, I can not think of a clear advantage to using Commons Logging.
I do think that it might be in our interest to change to an interface based logging system. Basically an adaption from the current iteration, where Logger is an interface. With Logger as an interface we can write a specialized Log4j LoggerFactory which would return Log4j Loggers that implement JBoss Logger (trace). So rather than having a wrapper, which delegates to a plugin, which delegates to a Log4j Logger, we simply have a Log4j Logger. By using an interface and introducing a factory class, say Logger.Factory (or whatever) we can keep the abstraction from Log4j with out having to encure any speed or memory costs assocated with wrapping. Note, this scheme is optimized for use with Log4j, since if folks want to use JDK1.4 the factory would probably have to return a wrappter or a smart method-mapping proxy. Due to the current Logger usage, a simple sed command (or an IDEs search and replace) can do the bulk of the work to implement it. * * * So bottom, line: Commons Logging: No. Interfaced JBoss Logger system: Yes Sound reasonable? --jason On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Scott M Stark wrote: > Unless there is a clear advantange to commons over the generalization > Sacha did it is not worth the trouble to switch to an alternate logging > wrapper. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Scott Stark > Chief Technology Officer > JBoss Group, LLC > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Design: Plans to decouple JBoss from log4j > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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
