Hi Benson and Daniel

Many thanks to have token your time to explain your choice to use
java.util.logging.Logger.
I like the idea to have not a lot of dependencies and perhaps we will do
like you.

If we decided to do that, is it possible to copy/paste your code about
Logging in our project XDocReport which is MIT License?

Thank a lot again.

Regards Angelo

2011/8/3 Daniel Kulp <[email protected]>

> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:03:45 AM Angelo zerr wrote:
> > Hi CXF Team,
> >
> > I would like know why you have decided to use java.util.logging.Logger in
> > your code and implements it with SFL4J, commons-logging...instead of
> using
> > directly for instance SFL4J which very used in a lot of open source
> project.
> > I like this idea not to be dependant of any Logger JARs, and I tell me if
> > we will use this idea for our XDocReport project. Have you some
> limitation
> > to use java.util.logging.Logger instead of using directly SFL4J?
>
> Way back when we started writing the first lines of CXF, SLF4J wasn't
> really
> an option, it didn't exist yet.  :-)    Thus, the choices really were
> commons-
> logging (which sucked, still does), j.u.l.Logger, or Log4J directly.   We
> ended up just using j.u.l as it performed the best and the API's were
> relatively clean and straight forward.   A simple wrapper allowed using
> Log4J
> as well.
>
> As Benson mentioned, neither commons-logging and SLF4J support localized
> log
> messages as part of the logger itself.   Before calling the logger, you
> would
> need to localize things and thus, you get a lot more
> if (logger.isLogging(..)) {
>    String msg = ....use ResourceBundle or something.....
>    logger.log(..., msg)
> }
> which makes the code a lot crappier than just:
> logger.log(level, "MSG_KEY", params)
>
> The extra dependencies issue was also a concern.   At the time, Apache
> Harmony
> was beginning to ramp up and we wanted CXF to be the JAX-WS implementation
> they would use.   They didn't want any extra jars if they were not really
> needed so using j.u.l was a better option there.    Other projects also
> kind
> of appreciate having fewer deps.
>
>
> >
> > Thank a lot for your answer.
> >
> > Regards Angelo
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [email protected]
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Reply via email to