On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:26:26PM -0700, Jason Dillon wrote:
> The wrapper is specific to Log4j, we could make it non-specific, but
> then we get into writting our own logging infrastructer, which is
> not something I would suggest.
Why on earth would you need to do something like that? All you'd need
is a standard interface, and then either a NULL implementation (so no
logging) or something to use the native JDK 1.4+ logging. Either way,
you reduce the dependency on Log4J. It looks like I might get some
free time in the next month or so: where's the wrapper, so myself (or
someone else) can take a look at it?
> Why reinvent the wheel, or in this case logging. Log4j does
> everything we want and keeps most of the crap we don't want or need
> pluggable, so don't have to use it.
It's a case of horses for courses: log4j is great, but not everyone
wants to use it.
> What is your beef with log4j? I still don't understand why you want
> it to go.
>From my reading of the thread, it appears to be a desire not to
dictate to the client more dependencies than are absolutely
necessary. Once a client side app has been developed, it could be
deployed to a large number of users at a site, and they'd have very
little need for logging (though, clearly, that makes diagnosing
problems harder for the sysadmin there) I agree that it's nearly
insane to remove _all_ logging, but println()s might be enough to
track where things are interesting on a debugged, distributed to the
user, client side app.
Cheers,
Simon
--
"The idea of a karaoke version of ``My Way'' that lasts for 3750
minutes is just too frightening to consider."
Programming Ruby, the Pragmatic Programmers
_______________________________________________________________
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
