Ceki ,
I agree with you, but I'm not discussing on the value of log4j. I read
carefully JSR47 , JLog and Log4j documentation and source code for weeks.
I don't belive are so different from the point of view of architecure, but
are different implementation.
I don't agree with you about the core extension. You can extend JSR47 as
Log4j. But it not the central point of the discussion.
What I mean is very simple : SUN's guys have done a paper in which the
explain the API the plan to use.
I'm interested to wrap Log4j under the JSR47 API so I can say to my
managers : it is compliant we can use it.
If not I'm sorry for Log4j but even if is the better package of the world
is written in Java ad it is a SUN trademark.
It seem to be a not so 'open' community.
Maurizio
----------
Da: Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A: LOG4J Developers Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oggetto: Re: What about JSR000047
Data: giovedì 19 aprile 2001 1.43
Maurizio,
Every now and then there is a question about log4j vs. the JSR47
"standard".
As the founder of the log4j project my opinion is heavily biased. You have
been warned.
It is upsetting to hear people talk about the JSR47 "standard" when no one
outside Sun has ever seen the thing running, at least not yet. JSR47 has
been very heavily influenced by JLog, IBM's Logging Toolkit for Java. Log4j
also draws from JLog although not nearly as heavily. By the way, log4j also
originated at IBM, it was also distributed at alphaworks for some time, but
the code bases are *totally* different. Some people still refer to log4j as
IBM's logging package, which is rather unfortunate.
JSR47 is not nearly as complete as JLog or log4j. It is basically a
skeleton API which is fine in itself. However, in my not so humble opinion,
compared to log4j it has several important drawbacks. See
http://www.qos.ch/ac2001/F11-200.html for a list. It must also be said that
none of the drawbacks are fatal. The people at Sun are not exactly stupid.
They will eventually correct their mistakes. When they do, the JSR47 API
will look a lot like log4j. It already does substantially.
The log4j package, in one form or another, has been around for over 5
years. It has over 30'000 lines of code. I expect JSR47 to be around 3'000
lines when released. Two years ago, log4j had that size with roughly
equivalent functionality.
JSR47 can be extended. One can define new output targets and formats.
However, as far as I know, JSR47 core is not designed to be extended. In
contrast, log4j core can be extended. For example, using log4j you can
define your own category subclasses and new priority levels.
This extensibility allows log4j to be adapted to users needs. It is not
hard to wrap log4j so that is looks like JSR47. This is has been actually
done although there a few caveats. In particular, the user cannot add code
which is under the java.xxx "standard" package hierarchy.
In a nutshell, it is not at all clear which logging package will be most
widely used in say 3 years. Log4j has been ported to C++ and Python. That
will become an overwhelming advantage in due time. Log4j has many unique
features and more are being added every day. As such, I would not bet on
the long term success of JSR47. It's only advantage is to be shipped with
the JDK. It's certainly a huge advantage but not necessarily a decisive
one.
We started a few years ahead. I hope this answers your question. Ceki
ps: Community and standard compliant are just words. It is important to see
what actually lies behind these cozy words.
At 12:53 18.04.2001 +0200, Maurizio Taverna wrote:
>I'm interested to know what do you think about the JSR000047 and if the
>Log4j will be compliant with the specification in the future. In the Ceki
>'s Java World Article
>(November 2000) I read : "Log4j already provides support for bridging int
>the JSR47 API". Most of my customer are interested in open source but
>they give a look if the implementation are standard API compliant. I
belive
>It could be possible to introduce a facade API compliant component and I'm
>interested to know
>if an implementation is already available. In any case I would like to
work
>with it if , of course, its interesting for the community.
>
>Thank you
>
>Maurizio
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
