Maybe Jon is right on this one.
(That strange situation again: me agreeing with Jon!!! (o;= )
>From what Jason wrote it looks like log4j could even be used as an
adapter for some other logging system.
Of course that, not knowing log4j, I do not know how easy that would
be, but...
- since we already miss a bit more control on what is logged
and how;
- if log4j is small enough;
- and flexible enough (to use as a bridge to other log systems)...,
maybe it would make more sense to use log4j as Velocity's new log
interface instead of going on improving our own thing.
Now... this is all supposing-talk. I have to take a look at log4j to
make my own opinion. But Jason arguments make some sense and that is
why I got quiet about it until I know more.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:20 PM
>
> on 8/7/01 6:05 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jon Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> on 7/31/01 5:49 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Those wrappers are minimal.
> >>
> >> What does that have to do with anything? It provides a clean
> abstraction for
> >> pluggable Logging within Velocity. Since no one is using it,
> lets get rid of
> >> it and simplify things.
> >
> > I have a client that uses it - they can take the velocity log flow and
> > mix it into their application engine. Works great.
> >
> > geir
>
> The point Jason made earlier is that you can do the same thing with Log4J.
>
> The benefit is that you code your custom logging stuff to the Log4J API's
> and then that way you can move it around to other code instead of
> having it
> be tied to Velocity's Logging API (which will never be used outside of
> Velocity, I'm sure).
>
> I see a lot of value in maximum code re-usability. I'm sure you and your
> clients do as well. :-)
>
> -jon
>
