look at the ojb.properties file: #---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Logging #---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # # The LoggerClass entry tells OJB which concrete Logger # implementation is to be used. # # Commons-logging #LoggerClass=org.apache.ojb.broker.util.logging.CommonsLoggerImpl # log4j based logging #LoggerClass=org.apache.ojb.broker.util.logging.Log4jLoggerImpl # OJB's own simple looging support LoggerClass=org.apache.ojb.broker.util.logging.PoorMansLoggerImpl LoggerConfigFile=log4j.properties
I think this functionality pre-dates commons-logging, although I may be wrong. I don't see any harm in making the commons stuff the default, anyone else object? -----Original Message----- From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:27 PM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: commons-logging Oh? I didn't notice that - perhaps I missed it in the source? If that's the case I feel down-right stupid :-O Wouldn't it be simpler to just use commons-logging period though? ... and not have to deal with any logging details inside of OJB? Matthew Baird wrote: >OJB supports commmons logging, our own logging implementation, and log4j. What more >could you ask for? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:23 PM >To: OJB Users List >Subject: commons-logging > > >I was just curious why OJB continues to use it's own home-brewed logging >strategy over commons-logging. Anyone know? That's about the only >thing I dislike about it - makes me deal with two different logging setups. > >Thanks :-) > -- Eddie Bush -- 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]>
