I think questions are: 1) do we remove WebBeansLogger? --> JUL 2) do we add a thin layer to allow to use other logging API? (add or reuse if we go for slf4j for instance)
- Romain 2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > full ack, yeaaa we found a volunteer - txs romain :D > > > Nah, serious. We should do a VOTE about whether to remove the > WebBeansLogger or not. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:46 AM > > Subject: Re: new logger api? > > > > Mark, > > > > That be a good starting point for me to submit a patch if you agree. > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > 2012/6/25 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > >> Or friends ;) > >> Le 25 juin 2012 08:26, "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" > > <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit > >> : > >> > >> > You still have nights ;-) > >> > > >> > > >> > Was a joke, sorry. > >> > JLouis > >> > > >> > 2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> > > >> > > gimme a few days plz, currently holding workshops the next 2 > > days. > >> > > > >> > > LieGrue, > >> > > strub > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > >> > > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> > > > Cc: > >> > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:15 AM > >> > > > Subject: Re: new logger api? > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, that will make things simpler to integrate ;-) > >> > > > > >> > > > JLouis > >> > > > > >> > > > 2012/6/25 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >> > > >> any other opinion? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> do we move to JULI directly? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> - Romain > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 2012/6/11 Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > no: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > private void wblLog(Level level, String > > messageKey) > >> > > >> > { > >> > > >> > if (logger.isLoggable(level)) > >> > > >> > { > >> > > >> > logger.logp(level, caller.getName(), > >> > > >> > > > Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[3].getMethodName(), > >> > > > messageKey); > >> > > >> > } > >> > > >> > } > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > well if we move to natve JUL we'll need to > > keep a factory to > >> allow > >> > > >> > subclasses to switch of implementation as cxf > > does. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > - Romain > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2012/6/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> +1 > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> The getStackTrace only hits us if we throw an > > Exception, right? > >> > > > The > >> > > >> >> problem is that due to the additional wrapper > > handler we always > >> > > > have a > >> > > >> >> 'mismatch' in the StackTrace... > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> I'm tempted to move to native jul > > anyway... > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> LieGrue, > >> > > >> >> strub > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > >> >> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> >> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> > > >> >> > Cc: > >> > > >> >> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:28 PM > >> > > >> >> > Subject: new logger api? > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Hi, > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > just created > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-674 > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > any thought about it? > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > the goal is mainly to allow to use > > something else than JUL. > >> > > > The > >> > > >> proposed > >> > > >> >> > patch uses a system property but it can > > be something else. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > The other topic of this jira is the usage > > of getStackTrace() > >> > > > in the > >> > > >> JUL > >> > > >> >> > implementation which is too costly IMO. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > - Romain > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >