At 12:19 AM 12/16/2003 +0100, Michael CATANZARITI wrote:
This summer, my company asked me to look for a logging framework in order to ingrate it into our product.
I needed a logging framework in C++, so I took a look at log4cpp and log4cplus.
Log4cpp is licensed under the LGPL, which was not suitable for my company.
Logcplus is licensed under the APL, but the project contributors do not want to depend on other library than the standard C/C++ libraries (which implies that log4cplus will not implement the classes DOMConfigurator, ODBCAppender, and SMTPAppender).
So I decided to create another port licensed under the APL, and that would implement the DOMConfigurator, ODBCAppender, and SMTPAppender.
Moreover, with log4cxx, custom appenders and layouts can be configured through the DOMConfigurator and PropertyConfigurator classes. This functionality implies to reproduce a part of the Java introspection mechanism. So log4cxx base classes are quite different from what can be found in log4cplus and log4cpp.
Michael,
I join Paul in saluting your hard work.
About the LS project, I propose that
- the configuration xml and property files should have the same syntax in every subproject implementation. For example, if you have a big project with a server-side implemented in C++, and a client-side implemented in Java/JSP, you would like to use the same log configuration file.
Similarity in the syntax should be nice. However, I would not want to impose or be imposed too rigid constraints.
- Following the same idea, the appender and layout formats should be compatible, in order, for example, to log from Java and C++, into the same file, through the FileAppender, with the same XML format, through the XMLAppender.
We have compatibility in XML output format and should make every effort to retain it.
- All subprojects should be compatible with Chainsaw or LogFactor5 at least through the XMLSocketAppender.
Yes, compatibility at the XML level.
- All subprojects could have the same witness files and scripts for functionality and performance tests. It could be an easy way to compare each subproject.
That's a very original idea although I am not sure about its feasibility. Maybe we can share witness files to test XML inter-operability.
Michael.
-- Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
