I like this idea... Since yoko is going to be used by different projects (celtix, geronimo), we should be able to log to any system...
If I understand you correctly then what you suggest is to use the java.util.Logger as the logging API instead of creating our own logging api... We will have a log4j Logger & default jdk logger... So can't we do the same thing the other way around, use the log4j logging api & have the a custom jdk logger based on the log4j api... I haven't worked much with either api to know which has the complete list of logging api's, i.e which can be considered as a superset, because it would be hard to map from a subset to a superset... If log4j has the complete list of log api's, then we will use it instead... - Balaji -----Original Message----- From: Kulp, John Daniel Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:49 AM To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Lars Kühne Subject: Re: Logging -1 to defining our own logging API. That is silly when there is a perfectly good logging API that meets the requirements (logging requirements, not integration requirements), is very simple to use, that is already installed on everyones machines, does not have "version number" issues, etc... Also, for all parts that are based on, use, or derive from Celtix, you will have to deal with JDK logging anyway. All logging in Celtix is JDK logging. Thus, the tools and bindings stuff might as well just use JDK logging since that is where a large number of the log messages are going to go anyway. There is no plans (or desire) to change Celtix at this point. It would be a lot of work for little/no gain. How is this for an idea/comprimise: For all logging, we use JDK Logger objects. However, instead of calling Logger.getLogger(....), we create a utility class and call: LoggerFactory.getInstance().getLogger(.....). (several varieties of getLogger calls). The default factory just passes them on to JDK Logger getLogger calls. However, if you want, you can replace the LoggerFactory with one that will wrapper log4j Loggers or whatever else you want. The JDK Logger object is not final (or have any final methods) so we can use it as the API for logging, the underlying logging can be just about anything. I COULD be convinced to do something in similar in Celtix as this would JUST affect the Logger creation mechanisms, not any of the actual logging. What are peoples thoughts about that? Enjoy! Dan > > -1 for using JDK logging directly > > I detailed this in my earlier messages, the short version is that most > people use/want/need log4j. Those people include myself for my apps at > work. Since Geronimo uses commons logging I assume that G won't easily > be able drop support for log4j either, but Geronimo commiters might > have more details on that. > > /Lars -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
