I also have issues with writing additional logging
interfaces. To me, it seems only natural that
Commons, a project oriented toward component
development, adhere to an integrated logging strategy.
Particularly in an HTTP client, where lots of
different things can go wrong, easily configurable
debugging is a real plus.
Log4j debugging helped Rod, Doug and I immensely in
fixing some of the problems in httpclient, but we
always have to rip it out again before we commit to
the repository. It would be great if we could benefit
from each others' debugging efforts.
- Morgan
--- Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/01 1:58 PM, "David Winterfeldt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I made a simple logging interface so I could
> switch
> > from standard out, the servlet log, log4j, or the
> sun
> > logging api (only standard out and the servlet log
> are
> > implemented). It isn't a complete logging
> interface,
> > but it is the general idea. If you want to look
> at
> > it, it is in cvs.
>
> There are 10 of them lying around jakarta, velocity
> has one, there's
> one in tomcat, yours, there was one in turbine. I do
> not see any
> benefit in using any of these interfaces over log4j.
> No simple
> logging interface is going to come anywhere close to
> features
> that log4j provides. It is 60k for the core bundle,
> but everyone
> needs logging and I think we should settle on
> something that
> is well tested and has worked for literally hundreds
> of projects
> already.
>
> In time it will probably come down to log4j or the
> Sun logging
> API and they work in a very similar fashion and it
> would not
> be hard to switch from one to the other because the
> semantics
> are so close and they are getting closer after Ceki
> pointed
> out some of the drawbacks of the logging API.
>
> We could also work on making a skeletal version of
> log4j that
> could be very small. I think we should work in this
> in the context
> of the highly successful logging project we already
> have instead
> of trying to roll yet another logging interface that
> is non-standard.
>
> > ValidatorLog (interface), DefaultValidatorLog
> > (Standard Out), HttpValidatorLog
> >
> >
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-struts/contrib/validator/src/share/com/w
> > intecinc/struts/validation/
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- "Waldhoff, Rodney"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>> As appeared to be generally agreed upon, HTTP
> >> client shouldn't
> >>> have dependencies with log4j
> >>
> >> Not that such a vote is particularly meaningful
> here
> >> (at least as I
> >> understand it), but I counted at least three +1s
> for
> >> the log4j support.
> >>
> >>> (Rodney, do you plan to revert that part of
> your
> >> latest patch ?)
> >>
> >> If I must. What I'd really like to do is replace
> >> with some lightweight
> >> (pluggable?) logging mechanism that is agreeable
> to
> >> everyone and supports
> >> log4j (and potentially other logging mechanisms
> as
> >> well). I think that
> >> would meet everyone's needs as I understand them.
> >> Failing that I guess we
> >> either rip out logging entirely or go back to
> >> stdout/stderr logging except
> >> provide a built-in way to turn it on and off via
> a
> >> property setting.
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute
> with Yahoo! Messenger
> > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>
> --
>
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
>
> http://tambora.zenplex.org
> http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
> http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
> http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
>
>
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
