Unico Hommes wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler <at> s-und-n.de> writes: > > > So, my suggestion is to: > > - deprecate the use of LogKit > > -0.5 > > I have been a great fan of LogKit since I first started using > it through Cocoon. > Its slim feature set attains the admirable goal of keeping > things simple, yet it's powerful enough for most of Cocoon's > usage scenarios. I think it is more intuitive to configure > than is Log4j. It's very well designed and it's specifically > designed with the kind of IoC log enabling in mind that we > will continue to use in the future. > > I understand the Avalon community argument and it is good to > have alternative logging solutions in Cocoon but I feel bad > about throwing out something I consider to be the best fit > logging package for Cocoon ATM. BTW I am not following Avalon > developement very closely anymore, does anyone know what the > status of LogKit is in Avalon itself (did they deprecate it?). > > It is true that Log4j configuration is familiar to most > people and LogKit's just isn't. But that argument just > applies to new users of Cocoon. The ones that have been using > Cocoon are familiar with LogKit and may not be with Log4j. > Not that it is very difficult to learn to configure either of > them anyway ;-) > Yes, that's true. My initial post was a little bit unclear :) The basic idea is to use log4j as default and provide perhaps a little bit more support for configuration of log4j - whatever that require. Of course you still will be able to use logkit if you want (so "deprecating" was a wrong term, sorry).
For the status of logkit, well, currently it's called "legacy" at Avalon (please correct me, if I'm telling something wrong here). As far as I remember, the idea is to not continue the development of Logkit anymore. But I think this is not a problem as Logkit is working well and is "finished". There is no real need for further development. Carsten
