Hello all,
I have been following this thread with interest. I am not going to try
to convince you to adopt log4j. You might have needs that log4j cannot
satisfy. You should adopt the solution that best suits your needs.
Regards, Ceki
At 00:04 15.08.2001 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>
>>>this patch decouples digester logging into an interface and a standard
>>>implementation (that has the same functionality as the current digester
>>>logging system). if the user wants to use a different logging system, then
>>>they can simply create an implementation and set a property.
>>>
>>>the cool thing about this approach is that it retains compatibility with
>>>existing code whilst allow users to plug- in their own favourite logging
>>>systems if they want to do so.
>>>
>>
>>Rats ... I thought I could keep dodging the great logging debate :->.
>>
>>If we're going to do something like this, it seems to me we should either
>>adopt the "commons logger layer" that Rodney proposed, or bite the bullet
>>and pick which logging API we want to support. It doesn't make sense for
>>every commons package "Foo" to create their own "FooLogger" interface.
>
>agreed.
>(that's the reason why i'd been holding off posting anything even though not being
>able to get debugging information through log4j makes life difficult for me.)
>
>it's just that having heard all the arguments i don't think that we're going to get
>an agreement anytime soon :(
>
>the patch was intended as an interim solution - a step in the right direction which
>could be done without breaking compatibility. it gives the ability for people to use
>log4j or log kit or whatever until there's consensus in the commons about logging.
>once that happens, it can be replaced with whatever's decided.
>
>IMHO given the problems with other commons releases caused by arguments about
>logging, releasing with an interim solution is better than releasing without any
>improvement.
>
>- robert
--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
