At 16:56 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However, > > I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something > > I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-logging really > > useful > > they will build a community around it. What I say or think won't matter. > >First, I'm not the author of log4j wrapper - it's Scott Sanders, Rod, etc. >( to give credits to who deserve :-)
OK, I had meant the whole bunch not just you. :-) >And what you say, think and do does matter. > >In particular maintaining and helping with the log4j wrapper, and making >sure commons-logging works best with log4j will help all users of >log4j that also use components that log with commons-logging. > >It may also get more people and components to use commons-logging >API instead of logger-specific APIs - and that may mean they'll be able to >choose the logger impl based on quality. The source of our argument seems to be that JAXP is the model to follow. Although there are similarities between the selection of an XML parser and a logging library, the problem with logging is far more complicated. With an XML parser, you get a parser, parse the document and it is over. The problem with logging is different because: 1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact 2) logging requires a configuration step. Currently this crucial step is ignored in commons-logging. 3) In container based environments, it is important for the user to control logging by carefully placing the log4j.jar file and its configuration file. By introducing an extra indirection step (commons-logging detection mechanism) this is made hopelessly complex. 4) In future versions of Application Servers, it will be the job of the application server to *impose* the (log4j) hierarchy and the specific Logger implementation. This simply can not be achieved with commons-logging. The point is that logging in some respects is more complex than XML parsing. By the way, I am just curious, how many vendors (outside xml.apache.org) implement JAXP? This has no direct bearing to the discussion. Regards, Ceki -- Ceki My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
