Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is necessary, and beneficial. We gain nothing by rolling
> our own but we have a lot to gain by using log4j directly. The greatest
> being the resources in the log4j community. I think the logging will
> be simplified yet be very powerful. And by using log4j directly
> I believe that Ceki will be very keen to help us and there's no
> better resource than Ceki when it comes to logging.
>
> But also I believe the change will make the logging system
> a great deal easier to manage. Most of the code will completely
> disappear and be relegated to log4j. Creating simple appenders
> for logging will also give a lot more flexibility. As I stated
> before, trying to add database logging wasn't that easy.
>
> I am finishing off some services refactoring and then I will
> try out log4j :-) I will post summaries of the changes before
> I start checking in tonight as they are extensive (yet backward compatible
> :-)) and it will probably take me 3-4 hours to check everything in.
>From what I gathered of the Turbine 2.1 logging system, the main point
of it was not to provide implementations but to provide interfaces
behind which to hide pluggable implementations. I'm not very familiar
with Log4J--does it offer this "natively"?
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
