On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, James Strachan wrote:
> If we were to go down the route of having a small & simple loggging
> abstraction in commons then why don't we take the most common subset of
> log4j that most people use (i.e the Category class) and provide a default
> implementation that just logs to System.out.
>
If we wanted to go this way (i.e. use Log4J's Category API directly), Ceki
has done this already -- he's got a "micro" JAR that is ~25k, for just
this sort of purpose.
To me personally, size is not big deal (I write server code for a living
:-). My issues are:
* Tie-in to an API that might not be the developer's choice
(yes, you can write an Appender etc. but this is an *emotional*
issue, not a technical one). I don't know how to address
this one any way other than what I proposed -- gracefully use
Log4J if it is there, and don't if it's not.
* Need to explicitly configure Log4J just to use DBCP or Digester
or whatever. (This can be made a non-issue by having an included
Log4J that self-configures itself to System.out gracefully in the
absence of explicit configuration.
Craig
