> From: Hexsel, Gustavo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Log4j Logging
(This must be national logging questions month :-) > if, according to > http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/logging.html, > log4j is the recommended logger I don't see anything on that page that implies log4j is recommended over any other mechanism. > I've seen mentions of JULI, but not on the logging page above... Read the page again; it's discussed thoroughly in the second half. > How does it fit? JULI is an implementation of the commons-logging APIs that is hard-coded for java.util.logging. > Is it a replacement for log4j? Kind of, but really log4j is a replacement for java.util.logging, and commons-logging is a generalized mechanism that allows use of either underneath. JULI merges commons-logging and java.util.logging into one layer largely to reduce overhead. It also extends the capabilities of java.util.logging to increase flexibility. > Is it any better? Can one configure something better > than the "simple" or "xml" formatters? It all depends on what your definition of "better" is. Since JULI is based on java.util.logging, you can create whatever handlers and formatters you want and plug them in. If you're already familiar with log4j, then perhaps you want to use that instead. - Chuck THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
