I think log4j is great.
I don't give a hoot what we use as long as
1) There is a simple way to stream the velocity error messages into an
application supplied object. Currently, we have an interface with 1
init method, and 1 log() method. Pretty simple.
2) The user doesn't have to fetch another jar to get Velocity to work -
right now the logkit stuff is put into the vel jar for convenience.
That is why I asked ceki about doing a small version - so we could stick
it in w/o excessive bloat.
3) Basic configuration is simple.
Like I said - I intend to integrate log4j as the logging engine asap in
the same way that logkit is used. No one will know the difference.
I personally would prefer that instead of forcing people to use log4j,
we keep a simple generic interface (for our simple log output stream)
and let people use log4j with our current log4j helper (which I am sure
no one uses...) or put that simple interface on whatever logger they
choose to use.
The simple interface with log4j helper and log4j as our default file
logger gives us power, simplicity and choice.
geir
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> 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
> >
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Well done is better than well said - New England Proverb
