On Dec 4, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: Subject: logging revisited...
I'm starting to think Ryan woke up today and asked himself "what's the
best way to screw with Hoss on his day off when he's only casually
skimming email?"
If I knew you had the day off, I would ask about moving to jdk 1.6!
: So, with that in mind I think we should consider using the commons-
logging API
: and shipping the .war file with the slf4j drop in replacement.
The behavior
: will be identical and their will be one fewer libraries. The loss
is the
: potential to use some of slf4j's more advanced logging features,
but I don't
: see us taking advantage of that anyway.
so if i'm understanding your suggestion correctly:
1) we change all of the logging calls in solr to compile against the
commons-logging API.
2) we do *not* ship with the commons-logging api.
3) we ship with an slf4j provided jar that implements the commons-
logging
api, funnels the log messages through slf4j and uses
java.util.logging as
it's output by default.
4) people who want to configure solr logging via some other favorite
logging framework (log4j, etc...) can still add another magic slf4j
jar to
make slf4j write to their framework of choice instead of
java.util.logging.
...do i have that correctly?
I feel dirty just thinking about this.
I'm afraid so, but I'll describe it differently so it does not sound
as crazy.
1. We compile everything against the commons-logging API (JCL)
2. We ship the .war file with a JCL implementation that behaves
identical to solr-1.3. Currently the best option is: jcl-over-
slf4j.jar + slf4j-jdk14.
3. Anyone using the solr.jar could use JCL or SLF4j magic
I think i may just abstain from any and all current or future
discussions
or decisions about logging. I'm really not that old, but I feel
like I
age 5 years every time the topic comes up.
I would have left well enough alone, but I am working with maven
dependencies now and the duplicate logging frameworks feels a bit
odd. I am happy with any choice here, but figured I should bring it
up before it is 'cooked' in to an official release.
I am happily to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but i don't think
that puts years back in the bank.
ryan
