On 8/16/01 5:31 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
>>> Although I wish it was not necessary, it seems like if the Logging
>>> component gets voted down, we'll end up with no logging at all, not Log4J
>>> logging. I think that the Logging component is a reasonable abstraction,
>>> and I can't stand by and watch logging itself disappear. So I have to
>>> give the Logging component +1.
>>
>> To reestablish the balance of votes, here's my -1 for the Logging
>> component :-)
>>
>> Using "Logging" APIs instead of Log4J APIs, and requiring the "Logging"
>> component instead of Log4J component is _bad_. Log4j may have problems,
>> but it's reasonably easy to solve them - a simpler Category, fewer classes
>> visible to the user, etc. Instead of inventing another logger, we should
>> fix log4j. Or push Ceki to adopt some of the ideas in Logging and make
>> them available in log4j.
>
> good luck.
> The only reason LogKit exists is because Ceki failed to address basic
> concerns - namely security and performance.
I have never had a problem with the performance of log4j. I admittedly
haven't thought about the security issues but costin brought up some issues
and it appears they can be easily dealt with.
> Neither can be bolted onto a
> toolkit but designed in.
I'm postive that with the number of people behind log4j that any security
issues can be factored nicely into the existing code.
> I tried to get him to change these things, since
> before he came to Apache until right up until a few weeks ago (when I found
> out I was a vile parasite on the Log4j community).
>
Not touching that one :-)
--
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
