Well, if you really want to go that way, let's do it: - faster implementation: i explained we fixed most synchronization issues which were performance bottlenecks, so I'm not really convinced by that argument - extensive battery of tests: well, log4j is 10 years old and quite stable ;-) - loback speaks slf4j: in our case, that does not help, as we'd have to use a intermediate api anyway because of the other constraints of pax-logging - extensive documentation: maybe that's true, i haven't had many complains about that - configuration files in xml or groovy: we need key/value pairs, so we can't leverage those - automatic relaoding of config files: that's provided by config admin and we would not use it - lilith: i think it can be used anyway - conditional processing: we can't use xml or groovy - filters: we support MDC in pax-logging, i'm sure we can implement that if needed - sifting appender: it has been added in pax-logging - automatic compression of log files: Achim provided the code on github and i think we can easily add it to pax-logging - stack traces: lol, this actually comes from James Strachan who provided a patch to log4j and we have the same for osgi - automic removal: that's a minor feature we could add too
In summary: most of those reasons may actually be true for log4j, but not for pax-logging. I don't have any problems with logback, it's just that I don't want to spend too much time to integrate it into pax-logging. You're very welcome to do it if you want, as long as we keep the same feature set. If you really need something in the above list that has not been fixed yet, you can either fix the problem in pax-logging / log4j, or enhance pax-logging to change the backend, but I just think the costs are very different. To your other reply, you're right, I want to enforce ConfigAdmin. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 18:04, samspy <sam.spyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guillaume > > I assume you missed my > > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Running-Karaf-without-PAX-Logging-tp3177504p3421434.html > post , where I linked the published reasons for switching to logback as > well > as stating our own. > > Could you perhaps briefly explain why the backend logging configuration > file > needs to be read by non-backend karaf components? > > Thanks again, > Sam > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Running-Karaf-without-PAX-Logging-tp3177504p3422108.html > Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
