FYI i have updated my patch to switch us to log4j as a straw man (mostly because i embarked before Dave's clarification) https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/
I'm interested in general feedback on the patch, but encourage continued discussion on deciding between log4j and logback. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > Aha, good catch^2! > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Dave Lester <d...@davelester.org> wrote: > >> Looks like logback is actually dual-licensed under EPL v1.0 and LGPL. >> http://logback.qos.ch/license.html <http://logback.qos.ch/license.html> >> >> So technically, the logbook EPL code could be included in object/binary >> form http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b < >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b> >> >> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarr...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed >> > >> > -Jake >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder < >> jeffschroe...@computer.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with >> >> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user >> >> issues or operationally. >> >> >> >> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html >> >> >> >> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better >> >> log4j. >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j. Can you >> summarize >> >>> some of the tradeoffs? >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder < >> >>> jeffschroe...@computer.org <javascript:;>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting >> >>> benefits >> >>>> over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to >> switch >> >>> to >> >>>> it. >> >>>> >> >>>> Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org >> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from >> >>> Twitter >> >>>>> commons. I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in >> >>> favor >> >>>>> of more standard java application logging conventions. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line >> >>>>> arguments: >> >>>>> -logtostderr >> >>>>> -alsologtostderr >> >>>>> -vlog >> >>>>> -vmodule >> >>>>> -use_glog_formatter >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via >> >> standard >> >>>>> java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties). We could >> explore >> >>>> using >> >>>>> an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that >> >>> backend >> >>>>> for now (since it's what we're currently using). >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone >> >> >> >> >
