In the spirit of equal time:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Commons_20Logging_20FUD
To summarize the last paragraph (that quotes an entry from the blog of one of JCL's creators), JCL is intended to be used by *library* code so it can leverage the logging implementation used by the application it is being called from. In other words, JCL is not intended to be used by applications.
Kris Schneider wrote:
I'll be looking into UGLI as well, but I currently code directly to the log4j API. Not that it doesn't have it's own set of issues in a J2EE environment, but my impression is that JCL can be much worse. Here's something else to chew on:
http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp
Vic wrote:
That's great about Java. I am going the other way, from JCL to the new log4j: http://logging.apache.org/log4j/docs/ugli.html
.V
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today I find myself converting an existing webapp from using Log4J directly to using JCL instead. As per the JCL User's Guide, I'm creating a private static Log variable in all my classes, Struts Actions included.
My question is, why is this OK? Static variables in Actions are a Bad Thing, that's a ell-known fact, but why is a Log instance an exception to this rule?
Is it only a bad thing to have static members that might be updated? Is that the difference here? Thanks all!
-- Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
