On 10/02/2012 13:25, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi, > > ma...@apache.org wrote: > >> Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>>> I have a preference fo juli. >>>> I can work with that. >>> >>> Is a dependency on JULI better than on common-logging? >>> >>> Or is there some confusion talking about JUL vs JULI? >> >> I was assuming java.util.logging rather than Tomcat's logging library >> JULI. > > And how do you intend then to manage the log output in an enterprise > environment? Implement an own JUL-fomatter, deploy it with your web > application and try to use it.
Yeah, that isn't going to work. I really do wish java.util.logging had been designed with JavaEE in mind. Clearly it wasn't. We tried fixing this in Tomcat but even with JULI the APIs just aren't available to do this. You could do JVM specific hacks but they will break just as soon as the JVM vendor changes their internal API (as they are perfectly entitled to do). In the end, Tomcat categorized this problem as WONTFIX. With this in mind, commons-logging is a better choice as it should be possible to have an entirely contained logging setup within the application and a properly written container shouldn't interfere with this. Commons-logging is also relatively simple to redirect to something else. Given the discussion so far has been around commons-logging or java.util.logging, I think these two are the front runners. I can live with either but I have a very narrow focus - i.e. what can i get working easily with Tomcat's packaged renamed version of pool2. Taking a wider view, commons-logging is probably the better choice as although it adds a dependency, it is easier for folks to integrate with their logging framework of choice. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
