(putting on flame suit) I'd be in favor seeing is how I spent a good bit of time 2 months ago writing JUL handlers and log managers to forward log messages to our logging framework (log4j). Pretty much any alternative (Commons, Log4j, SLF4J) is better since all of them allow you to _configure_ your underlying implementation (including JUL if that's what you're into). JUL on the other hand ~requires you to write code to switch logging implementations or even do basic things like rotate log files. SLF4J seems especially slim and nice these days but really anything is better than JUL.
If others are really serious about it, I'd be happy to help the cause. It should be a fairly quick refactor and we could leave the default configured logger as JUL via whatever framework we end up going with - will -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:48 AM To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Solr Logging Anyone have good tips on working w/ java.util.logging (JUL)? For one, the configuration seems to be per JVM, which isn't all that useful in a webapp environment. http://www.crazysquirrel.com/computing/java/logging.jspx has some tips for Tomcat, but I am using Jetty. Not too mention, it seems, that if one wants to implement their own Handler, they have to somehow figure out how to get it in the right classloader, since the JVM classloader can't seem to find it if it is packaged in a WAR. I know logging is sometimes a religious debate, but would others consider a patch that switched Solr to use log4j? Or, commons- logging? I just don't think JUL is up to snuff when it comes to logging. It's a PITA to configure, is not flexible, doesn't play nice with other logging systems and, all in all, just seems like crappy design by committee where the lowest common denominator won out. The switch is quite painless, and the former offers a lot more flexibility, while the latter allows one to plugin whatever they see fit. I will work up a patch so people can at least see the options. Cheers, Grant
