Well, I got an "actual" answer... Here's what I was told...
"Log4J is not J2EE complient so we should not be coding to it directly. Log4J requires direct file manipulation. J2EE forbids direct file manipulation, requires URL of "file://..." usage."
"WAS uses commons logging in it's implementation, currently with Log4J underneath. Log4j is notorious for getting confused with too many initializers."
(WAS being Websphere, in case anyone wasn't sure... that's what we've settled on here).
I completely agree with the part about not coding to Log4J directly (or to any other logging package directly), hence I have no problems going to JCL. But, what I'm being told is that Log4J should not be used underneath, at least down the road (many of our apps do use it, and no one is yet being pushed off of it).
What about the file manipulation and Log4J getting confused points? Any comments on those? I wasn't aware that manipulating files was contrary to J2EE rules. What did I miss?
(I should point out that the person who gave me these quotes is generally a very knowledgable person, someone who's expertise I'd say I trust, so I'm not trying to throw anything in his face or anything, but if my company is laboring under a false bit of information, namely that Log4J is a problem for someone reason, and it's not actually true, someone, looks like me!, has to let them know).
-- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com
Eddie Bush wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:33:22 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quick question... I wanted to get answers from real-world Struts developers, so I hope no one minds the OT post...
Is anyone using Commons Logging in their webapps, and if so, what logging toolkit are you using under it?
Log4J ... awesome, flexible stuff.
Also, for anyone that is using Log4J... I've been told at work that we cannot use it because it isn't "J2EE-compliant"...
No clue :-/ I know it seems to work pretty well though :-D
How can you say something that has nothing to do with the J2EE spec to is(n't) compliant with it though? I'd wager it has something to do with how it loads classes ...
Thanks all!
Frank W. Zammetti
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
