On 7/31/01 8:06 PM, "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 7/31/01 4:47 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should we agree with you just because YOU are tired of LogKit?
>
> I'm just voicing my opinion.
>
> I never said that you have to agree with me.
>
>> Shouldn't Velocity be log system agnostic?
>
> It already is. I wrote the code.
I still think using log4j directly is the way to go. I'm having
the same argument everywhere but log4j allows you to integrate
with any other logging system and it provides more flexibility
and granularity than you can get with a simple interface.
For example, you could very simply create a log4j appender that
interfaces with the servlet logging mechanism for unified logging
in a webapp if you wanted.
I have made log4j appenders to interface with a couple existing
logging system, and made one to log to a database and it's pretty
simple. To me log4j is a logging interface. There are a growing
number of these little logging interfaces poping up all over the
place but I don't think they really buy you anything. Any interface
created is less flexible and provides less granularity. With log4j
by simply changing a config file you could have reference errors
go to one appender, say a mail message to designer to tell him
that a reference is not defined, and database resource errors log
to syslog where a system admin would find with a standard syslog
logfile processing tool. Log4j is completely flexible and you
can log anything you want to any destination by changing the
config file.
As I've said before the usage pattern offered by log4j and the
sun logging API are becoming standard: it may seem unecessary
to get an instance of a category in each class (you could do
it in a subclass if you wished) but it truly allows full
control over all logging options.
And because jsr27 is now very, very close to what log4j does
(this was a result of Ceki's discussions with the spec lead) so
flipping from one to the other is very easy. A search and replace
operation if you wanted to change in the future, but I still think
log4j is better.
I don't think we lose anything by binding to log4j directory, and
I don't think we gain anything by making another logging interface.
I have asked Ceki how small we could make a log4j-tiny.jar to provide
the bare minimum for logging so people can't complain about the size.
I don't find this a valid argument anyway because everything needs
logging so it is likely that a log4j jar will be around.
I'm going to take a stab at making a minimal log4j just to try
it but I think tiny log4j jar would provide a better option than
rolling another logging interface.
> My suggestion is to take that out and just depend on Log4J.
>
> It will remove a few classes from Velocity itself, and make the code and
> configuration smaller and simpler.
>
> -jon
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
