-1 to #3, why re-invent the wheel? It's more code that you have to implement, test, maintain, and enhance.
+1 to #2 and SLF4J On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi; > > Last couple of days there were some good discussion on how to proceed with > logging in OWB. There are some approaches: > > 1* Remove any hard log dependency library from classpath(For example : > removing log4.jar from classpath) and use java logging. > 2* Use some third-party facades, for example using commons-logging and slf4j > etc. I read many complaints about using commons-logging in projects because > of classloading issues and memory leaks etc. But no knowledge on using > slf4j. > 3* Define our own interface and implement it with other logger frameworks. > At runtime, OWB selects which one to use. > > Related issue is : http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-300 > > My Comment: > ---------------------- > I do not think that using only standard java logging is good. Clients want > to use other logging frameworks with OWB replacing standard java logging. > But also, I do not want that logging will be the most complex part of the > OWB. Logging must be simple. > > Instead of using third party libraries and their jars (managing their jars, > adding extra classpath jars etc.), I just want to create a our own simple > facade(interface),and implement it with "log4j" and "java logging". But > log4j.jar will be optional in "pom.xml" therefore there is no hard > dependency to log4j.jar. After that we can provide configuration options to > clients which logging framework they use. (Using system properties, owb > configuration file etc.).Standard logging will be Java Logging. If anyone > really wants to use another logging framework, it must implement and > contribute :) > > +1 for the item (3) > > > WDYT? > > --Gurkan >
