Ray,

Great!

It seems this bundle has to be started before the OSGi LogService
implementation bundle? I'd expect the Activator to use a service tracker?

Simon

Raymond Auge a écrit le 12/04/2018 à 16:44 :
> As promised here's the repo https://github.com/rotty3000/osgi.to.logback
> 
> - Ray
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Simon Chemouil <schemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> This sounds great. I'd probably use it! I usually use logback with
>> static loggers but I might migrate (back) to OSGi Log 1.4 and that seems
>> like a nice way to do this smoothly.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Raymond Auge a écrit le 11/04/2018 à 19:08 :
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there would be interest in the felix project to accept
>> and
>>> host a small integration between the upcoming Log 1.4 specification with
>>> Logback backend.
>>>
>>> The features I have already are:
>>>
>>> - single bundle impl
>>> - generic LogListener that attempts to be the shortest path from the log
>>> record (LogEntry) creation to the Logback appenders (no intermediaries)
>>> - fully integrates all the record details like location, stackframes,
>> etc.
>>> - allows Logback to manage levels for legacy framework, service and
>> bundle
>>> events in a granular fashion by using canonical logger names
>>> - can react to Logback scan (i.e. autoupdate) to dynamically apply level
>>> changes using the new LoggingAdmin
>>> - fully supports all other logback configuration goodness
>>> - makes it very simply pipe all the various Log APIs to the same
>> appenders
>>> (or not) using the same formats (or not) and control all their log levels
>>> in one place: slf4j is native, but I've tested with log4j 1.2/2.x,
>>> commons-logging, JUL, jboss-logging in the same framework
>>>
>>> Of course Felix doesn't have a Log 1.4 impl yet so that is a
>> consideration.
>>>
>>> This small integration has solved so many of the rather bothersome
>> logging
>>> issues I've been suffering the past years and I'd like to share it with
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Reply via email to