Not to mention the problems of supporting multiple versions of Log4j.
But I really think this discussion belongs in the commons-dev mail
list. Ceki is making criticisms against an API etc, that really should
be taken up in the appropriate forum.
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 20:13, Scott Sanders
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:28, Vladimir Bossicard wrote:
god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before
commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging?
its own. The commons logger does
Wait a minute, I know you... You are the apricot
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/apricot/) guy. In the fairy tale The
Emperor's new clothes, what was the name of the child who calls
He's naked. The man in the crown is naked
Was it Vladimir Bossicard?
At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you
+1 We have to be Pro Choice. For better or worse its part of the way things are done.
If there is to be one logging API it will emerge with least pain through natural
wasteage.
Abbot of Citeaux, leading the 13th Century crusade against the Albigensians thundered:
“Kill them all, God will know
The interesting case is of course measuring performance when logging is
turned off. Here is a little experiment.
My CLASSPATH:
CLASSPATH=.;/java/jdk1.3.1/jre/lib/rt.jar;/home/cgu/ASF/jakarta-log4j-1.2beta4/dist/lib/log4j-1.2beta4.jar;commons-logging-1.0/commons-logging.jar
I have written two
Good point, except that the loop length was 100'000'000 so the cost of the
first 10'000 calls would be dwarfed by the remaining 99'990'000. Of course
there is also:
~/java Indirect 1
log4j: Parsing threshold string [WARN]
log4j: Could not find root logger information. Is this OK?
log4j:
At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote:
god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before
commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging?
I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projects use
On 3/28/02 5:14 PM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possible but I would not be that sure. We will have very strong new
features in log4j 1.3 (the release after 1.2) which will leave JDK 1.4
logging even further behind. Just as importantly, log4j documentation
is going to get a
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not completely clear
about all this..)
--
To
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not
On 3/29/02 10:36 AM, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then
On 3/29/02 11:05 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was
At 15:36 29.03.2002 +, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, the defining advantage to the commons-logging API that I see is
that
it
allows users to adopt a single logging implementation, which confers
real
What needs to be appended to that statement is ...if everyone codes to
the
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, the defining advantage to the commons-logging API that I see is
that
it
allows users to adopt a single logging implementation, which confers
real
What needs to be appended to that
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Schnitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Comments on the commons-logging API
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, the defining advantage
At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Where is this world where everyone uses Log4J?
That world = (world - jakarta)
--
Ceki
My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
- Original Message -
From: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Where is this world where everyone uses Log4J
Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Where is this world where everyone uses Log4J?
That world = (world - jakarta)
I tend to agree with Ceki! :) I never used it until I didn't move on from
Jakarta and went to do some real work for my
At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
I am pro-Log4J. I wish I lived in that Log4J-only world (until/unless
something better came along). Generally, commons-logging neither encourages
nor discourages use of Log4J. However, I would argue that it _does_
encourage Log4J a bit by
- Original Message -
From: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
I am pro-Log4J. I wish I lived
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
True. It does encourage it, but only initially. On the long run,
however, people will run into problems with their logging (as is
happening now). They will say this commons-logging+log4j stuff is too
complicated, we'll switch to JDK 1.4 logging, at
informed and inform well when you
talk about other logging APIs.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:14 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 15:30
At 16:33 28.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the
bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in
the way.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
Hmm, maybe it is. What I am trying to say is that I would have liked
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 16:33 28.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the
bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in
the way.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
Hmm, maybe it is. What I
Costin,
I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However,
I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something
I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-logging really
useful
they will build a community around it. What I say or think
contention is that it will make life harder
not easier. Nothing more, nothing less.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:14 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 15:30 28.03.2002
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I never suspected (nor suggested) that commons-logging effort
was dishonorable in any way. My contention is that it will
make life harder not easier. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think it may make life harder for
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:13, Scott Sanders wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Glc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I never suspected (nor suggested) that commons-logging effort
was dishonorable in any way. My contention is that it will
make life harder not easier. Nothing more,
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:38, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through
an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact
Not in modern JVMs (read most almost all jdk1.3 impls).
As long as the underlying indirection (ie between
god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before
commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging?
I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projects use this common-logging
package? What's
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
The problem with logging is different because:
1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through
an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact
Only for the logger that do not implement the interface :-) If
I'm quoting Ceki's entire message here because I think he raises a number of
interesting and valid points.
But I think this misinterprets what (in my mind) is the main point of
commons-logging.
One can use commons-logging, as you state, as a implementation-independent
logging wrapper in hopes
Ceki,
I'm not sure I understand very well this.
I think we have a consensus on few items ( and you seem to just repeat
them ):
- JDK1.4 logging is not useable as a 'standard logging API' ( even if it
is released under JCP )
- log4j is the best logger ( for Peter and few others: logkit is
At 11:49 27.03.2002 -0600, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
But this isn't really the reason commons-logging was created. Note that
most of the commons components are just that--tiny libraries meant to be
integrated/incorporated into larger frameworks and larger applications.
Some of these components
- Original Message -
From: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 11:49 27.03.2002 -0600, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
But this isn't really the reason commons
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
If your library chooses to use logging API XYZ, this does not impose
XYZ to the clients of your library. Your clients can use the logging
library they prefer (if they are using logging API) and your library
can use XYZ.
And the user will have to
At 15:18 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Here's the problem, as I see it.
Suppose Commons component A decides to adopt Log4J, Commons component B
decides to adopt LogKit, and Commons component C adopts JDK1.4 logging.
They will all minimally function with the right jars in the
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 10:15 27.03.2002 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal is not to be able to change the logger at compile time, but to be
able to detect the platform logger and use it. The only way to do that is
via a standard API - and commons-logging seems to be
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
So, if I understand correctly the reason for adopting commons-logging
API is for convenience rather than non-intrusiveness as a library
(with respect to logging).
The goals of commons-logging ( as I understand them ):
- non-intrusiveness
- convenience
-
- Original Message -
From: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API
At 15:18 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Here's the problem, as I see it.
Suppose
Costin, Morgan, Rodney,
Thanks for the lively discussion and sharing your points of view. My intent
was to warn users of the dangers of using common-logging. I have done
my bit. Cheers, Ceki
At 16:31 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan wrote:
I believe the order of precedence is well documented. I think
44 matches
Mail list logo
