Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:00, Ralph Goers wrote: > >>I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J >>directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha, >>(b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared >>to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any >>deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own >>UGLI jar and requires that it be used). > > > For the record, Ceki more or less closed UGLI and transferred it to a brand > new external project called SLF4J, and trying hard to get the JCL folks along > on the ride. > > Regarding the "shipping an UGLI jar"; The whole purpose of Ceki's static > linking is to avoid these types of problems. If the Cocoon code finds the > JBoss UGLI, then it will be used, otherwise it will use its own. The point is > that which ever UGLI LogFactory that is found, IT will only use its own > logging implementation, not getting confused with others. > > IMHO, the long-term(!) strategy should be to use the JDK Logging as the API, > and "innovative people" will figure out how to redirect that to Log4J or > something else.
...just as a head up: it seems like the ongoing commons logging debate has triggered some actions lately. AFAIU a lot of the former problems have beens solved... cheers -- Torsten
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
