At 15:55 18.02.2002 -0500, Adam Krieg wrote:
>I'm considering using Log4J for a new project, but have some questions about
>it that I need to be answered before I make my decision. I'm interested in
>having a single logging class that client classes can call just by writing:
>
>MyLogger.debug(this,"log statement");
>
>I'm passing in a reference to the object in order to keep track of who's
>calling the logger, so that the logger can print out that info, if needed.
>There will be one configuration for the whole application, which will get
>set in this MyLogger class. But in reading the documentation, it seems that
>every class that wants to use the logger has to get an instance of
>Category/Logger along the ways of
>
>static Category = Category.getInstance("MyClassName"); ?
>
>If so, that will be a pain when Category gets thrown out the window in a
>year. I'll have to change Category.getInstance to Logger.getLogger all over
>the place and use Level instead of Priority and a whole bunch of other
>stuff. I would like to wrap up all this log4J API specific stuff in one
>class so when 2003 rolls around, I'm not in global search and replace mode
>all over my code.
>
>This brings me to my second question. I would use version 1.2, but was put
>off by the statement:Log4j version 1.2 is not feature-complete, nor is the
>documentation up to date, so I hesitated to use it. On the other hand it is
>obvious that changes on a very fundamental level (Priority vs Level,
>Category vs Logger) are occurring going from 1.1 to 1.2, so what is a
>developer to do? What is everybody else doing with this?
Cognizant of these problems the intention is to get log4j 1.2 out the door
in the next few weeks. I am currently concentrating on bug fixes and test
cases putting feature enhancements on hold. Regards, Ceki
ps: Log4j 1.3 is going to be really cool. :-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
