Jeff,
I'd say that's a pretty accurate description. Thanks for sharing it. Ceki
At 12:00 12.11.2001 +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:47:51PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Can anyone describe the major differences between Log4J and the
>> Jakarta-Avalon-Logkit. They seem redundant. Why does the jakarta project
>> support more than one logging approach
>
>Mostly for historical reasons. LogKit is Peter Donald's baby, used in
>Avalon, Cocoon, James etc. The basic APIs are very similar, especially
>since each project made an effort to align with the JSR 47 API.
>
>The only real difference I see is the philosophical one of how Loggers
>should be obtained. LogKit was designed for use in frameworks where the
>principle of "inversion of control"[1] is extensively applied. One
>implication of IoC is that components are passive, and interact with the
>outside world solely through their container. There is a well-defined
>component lifecycle. In Avalon, the first thing that happens to a
>component is that it is *given* a Logger. It doesn't request one through
>a static method like Logger.getLogger(".."), since that would break IoC
>and potentially cause a security risk (overhead-less security is one of
>IoC's benefits).
>
>Then again, 90% of code doesn't use this component-oriented approach,
>and Logger.getLogger("..") is much more convenient when you don't care
>about IoC. I use LogKit for Avalon-based code an Log4j for everything
>else.
>
>HTH,
>
>--Jeff
>
>[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/inversion-of-control.html
>
>> Thanks for your response
>>
>> Stephen
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
