Marco Rolappe wrote:
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von Berin Loritsch Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2004 15:35 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [RT] Logging in Cocoon
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Marco Rolappe wrote:
why depend explicitly on log4j instead of using commons-logging? AFAIK when log4j is available commons-logging automatically uses it before falling back to JDK logger etc.
Currently - as we are using Avalon for our components - we use an avalon logger which is not directly logging but uses a logging subsystem. This subsystem can be logkit, log4j etc. I think commons-logging is possible as well. I honestly don't know if it's better to use commons-logging or directly use log4j.
If you were to ask the original author of Log4J, the answer is simple: directly use Log4J. When I described to him how Avalon does the abstraction, he said he liked the sound of it better than the commons logging solution.
which abstraction exactly? the Logger interface is more or less the same when compared to logkit's Logger.
The Avalon approach--only because of the lack of dynamic setup/ configuration. It is all completely explicit.
What's wrong with commons logging? Nothing if you have a standalone application. However, it uses classpath discovery to determine if you have LogKit, Log4J, JDK 1.4 logging, and where the logging
it can use classpath discovery, but it can also be explicitly configured IIRC.
Perhaps that came out of his constant urging. As long as it can be configured explicitly I have no problems. However, black magic should be avoided if at all possible.
I don't have all the links right now, but suffice it to say that Commons Logging uses black magic to set everything up at startup.
as mentioned it can use 'black magic' but it doesn't depend on it.
As long as we don't use the black magic, I am fine. Building on sand is bad, as we all know.
