Hello Yoav, The real question is why, when Apache already has the preeminent logging package out there (Log4j), do they create yet another package for logging. Why don't other Apache projects use Log4j directly? While Apache is at it, why don't we create a wrapper around Tomcat to hide all the details about the Tomcat container. It will be called commons-container and will not only wrap Tomcat, but WebLogic, WebSphere, etc. It will be great!....yeah, right.
The commons-logging project is only valid if Log4j does not exist. Apache is not about making everything inter-operate generically. It is about making packages/apps that are useful to people. Log4j is, inarguably, useful to people. Why should Apache care that other logging packages exist? People either use Apache's product or some other one. What's this "well, you can use any logging api if you use commons-logging". That's a fallacy. You are using the commons-logging api and are limited by what it provides. It, in turn, is limited by the lowest common denominator logging package it suppoprts. What benefit does this gain anyone? Log4j, JDK1.4, and other logging packages just sit there providing their base-minimum functionality through commons-logging while commons-logging provides the user with lots of bugs and headaches. Sorry, but I don't get it??? commons-logging developers, feel free to flame me and tell me how wrong I am. Maybe you will open my eyes? Until then, my opinion is that commons-logging should just stop existing and quit bugging-up apps like Struts and others that get poisoned by commons-logging. I cringe when I see an app I am interested in using it. The questions about it on the tomcat-user list are nearing that of the Apache-Tomcat jk connectors...well, that's stretching it a bit, but it helps to make the point. [ducking for cover] Jake Thursday, February 20, 2003, 8:40:22 AM, you wrote: SY> Hi, SY> I guess the subject pretty much says it all. SY> I've been seeing a ton of issues people have when trying to use SY> commons-logging. Some have to do with tomcat and complicated SY> classloader issues, some have to do with apps that just use SY> commons-logging (e.g. struts) and so users don't have the option to NOT SY> use commons-logging. SY> My question is, can we, should we, do anything to make log4j and SY> commons-logging play better with each other? Or it is not log4j's job? SY> Or is there nothing log4j can do about it? SY> Personally, having used log4j for a long time and loving it, and having SY> tried commons-logging a couple of times, I like using log4j by itself. SY> I don't think the added complexity (configuration, deployment) of SY> commons-logging is worth the effort at all. SY> What do people think? SY> Yoav Shapira SY> Millennium ChemInformatics SY> This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only SY> for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this SY> e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. SY> --------------------------------------------------------------------- SY> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SY> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best regards, Jacob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
