Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Cedric,
If you think that j.u.l has all the features you need then you should
use it. Have you actually looked at the contents of j.u.l?
No more than 5 minutes.
Again, I'm not trying to say that any logging package is better than
any another one, because I don't have this
FACT: Jog4J supports JDK 1.1.x and higher,
while JogKit only supports JDK 1.2+, and JDK 1.4 logging is only
_officialy_
available in JDK 1.4.
Not terribly interested in Loggers, but I think I might need a JogKit.
Actually I've got a bit of a mainframe, will Jog4J RUN :-)
I think you may have
Recently I saw an Avalon announcement regarding a logger kit. Is this is
related in any way to the Log4J project ? If not, what are the key
differences between the two ? And while we are on the subject, what
are the differences between these two and the Sun logging API ?
We plan to add a
on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It takes a couple
iterations of an API to get it right, and Sun foolishly decided to include
the API without the real world testing and feedback.
I'm sure it isn't the first time. :-)
-jon
on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully the information presented here will help you. I would stay
away from JDK1.4 logging, and use either LogKit or Log4J which are of
equal quality--but slightly different focuses and underlying concepts.
+1
Log4J also has a
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Cedric,
Please see
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
and
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
Great, thanks for posting that new (critique2) information!
(I already read the old one)
And
Tal Dayan wrote:
We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
which one to use.
If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
Cedric
-
To unsubscribe,
Cedric Berger wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Cedric,
Please see
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
and
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
Great, thanks for posting that new (critique2)
Cedric Berger wrote:
Tal Dayan wrote:
We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
which one to use.
If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
Too bad I can't use it with JDK 1.3 (check Ceki's new critique
-Original Message-
From: Cedric Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Cedric,
Please see
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
and
http
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Cedric Berger wrote:
Tal Dayan wrote:
We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
which one to use.
If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
Too bad I can't use it with JDK 1.3
On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 04:21 PM, Cedric Berger wrote:
Too bad this fails to recognize that you don't need to put that into
the java.util.* namespace.
For example the javelinsoft classes are under com.javelinsoft.
Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
I never said to stay away from the JDK 1.4 logging system.
Well, then look at the following part of your previous message,
and explain more clearly what you meant by +1.
on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully the information presented here will help you. I would
Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
Yes, you're right.
This is not a perfect solution.
But since the java.awt.swing - com.sun.awt.swing - javax.swing
horror story, some tools are pretty good at automating
Avi Cherry wrote:
Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
Yes, you're right.
This is not a perfect solution.
But since the java.awt.swing - com.sun.awt.swing - javax.swing
horror story, some tools are
What prevent the JavalinSoft class from working with the JDK 1.4?
And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
*if you relly need to*?
What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
you end up having to include a copy of it (the JavalinSoft version)
Avi Cherry wrote:
What prevent the JavalinSoft class from working with the JDK 1.4?
And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
*if you relly need to*?
What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
you end up having to include a copy of it (the
Cedric,
If you think that j.u.l has all the features you need then you should
use it. Have you actually looked at the contents of j.u.l?
I lacks many useful features that people expect to find in a logging
package. Yes, even you will want them. Log4j might be obsolete five years
from now
18 matches
Mail list logo
