Niclas Hedhman wrote on Thursday, April 29, 2004 4:52 AM:
On Wednesday 28 April 2004 23:54, Justin Permar wrote:
[snip]
On a grander scope, there seem to be a number of avalon tools that are essentially copies of tools that seem to be industry standard elsewhere. Why is this?
Most of what I think you are referring to are mainly wrappers around the 'standard', to suit our needs and not replacements.
or - refering logkit - are just simply *older* than the standard :)
Yes and no.
If you take a look at the logkit based logging system implementation under the avalon-logging project there is the ability to dynamically load (and unload) logging targets. Each logging target type has its own specific implementation dependencies. This means that you could do things like add a new logging target *without* taking down your system.
Achieving this with logkit is a lot easier than achieving the same thing with Log4J (as an example) simply because (a) LogKit is local and (b) LogKit does not define a configuration model. To do the same thing with Log4J would require the invention of a different/extended Log4J configuration with another community - and that's something that takes a lot more time.
Cheers, Stephen.
Regards, J�rg
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
|---------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org | |---------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
