On 17/02/2012 21:13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> So... are we ready to move some bits?
> ;)
Getting there. I had some Tomcat stuff to do. I'll try and look at this
this week.
Mark
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
> wrote:
>
>> 2012/2/13 Mark Thomas :
>>>
>>> General
>>>
So... are we ready to move some bits?
;)
Gary
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
wrote:
> 2012/2/13 Mark Thomas :
> >
> > General
> > - Logging in pool, if any, should be minimal
> >
>
> Two general questions:
> When there are several pools,
> - is it possible to discern log mess
2012/2/13 Mark Thomas :
>
> General
> - Logging in pool, if any, should be minimal
>
Two general questions:
When there are several pools,
- is it possible to discern log messages from different pools?
- is it possible to control logging level for a single pool, or all
pools have the same logging c
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I thought it might be
useful to summarize the discussion so far.
Preferences have been expressed for:
- java.util.logging (jul)
- commons logging (cl)
- SLF4J
General
- Logging in pool, if any, should be minimal
jul
- Anything other than jul adds a
ction environment,
since you already screwed up by releasing the code in the first place.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Thomas
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:25 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: [DISCUSS][POOL] Logging options for Pool2
One of the big design decisions left for poo
Hi Ralph,
log4j2 looks really promising, I'll join the logging ML.
And nice to see fluido-skin in action :P
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Goer
The better thing to do would be to point you to http://logback.qos.ch or
http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/. Compare the features in either of
those against JUL.
When building a framework you can't look at logging in isolation. Nobody wants
to configure JUL and Logback and Log4j, etc.
R
On Feb 10, 2012, at 15:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that isn't going to work. I really do wish java.util.logging had
>> been designed with JavaEE in mind. Clearly it wasn't. We tried fixing
>> this in Tomcat but even with JULI the AP
Hi Ralph,
just for a matter of curiosity and filling my lacks of knowledge, can
you point me please to some doc about the lacks of j.u.l. ?
Many thanks in advance, all the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:40 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 10/02/2012 16:22, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> This would be good to know: What is the performance hit of the two
>> solutions above?
>>
>> The question becomes: should pool2 depend on CL?
>
> Bridging JUL is probably not the most efficien
On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>
> Yeah, that isn't going to work. I really do wish java.util.logging had
> been designed with JavaEE in mind. Clearly it wasn't. We tried fixing
> this in Tomcat but even with JULI the APIs just aren't available to do
> this. You could do JVM
Le 10/02/2012 16:22, Gary Gregory a écrit :
This would be good to know: What is the performance hit of the two
solutions above?
The question becomes: should pool2 depend on CL?
Bridging JUL is probably not the most efficient solution, but if the
application is not very log intensive I think
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 10/02/2012 15:53, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>
> When it is integration time, we'll need some guidance even if it is just
>> pointers to HOW-TOs. In my case, what happens when my server to coded to
>> Log4J and I want all logging to go t
Le 10/02/2012 15:53, Gary Gregory a écrit :
When it is integration time, we'll need some guidance even if it is just
pointers to HOW-TOs. In my case, what happens when my server to coded to
Log4J and I want all logging to go to the same file? I do not need an
answer now but it will be an issue.
On 10/02/2012 13:25, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ma...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> I have a preference fo juli.
I can work with that.
>>>
>>> Is a dependency on J
Hi All,
If we do logging, JUL is acceptable of course. So is commons-logging.
When it is integration time, we'll need some guidance even if it is just
pointers to HOW-TOs. In my case, what happens when my server to coded to
Log4J and I want all logging to go to the same file? I do not need an
ans
Hi,
ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>>On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote:
I have a preference fo juli.
>>> I can work with that.
>>
>>Is a dependency on JULI better than on common-logging?
>>
>>Or is there some con
Gary Gregory wrote:
>On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> I have a preference fo juli.
>> I can work with that.
>
>Is a dependency on JULI better than on common-logging?
>
>Or is there some confusion talking about JUL vs JULI?
I was as
Hi Gary,
apologize, I meant the native java.util.logging.* APIs.
all the best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012,
On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> I have a preference fo juli.
> I can work with that.
Is a dependency on JULI better than on common-logging?
Or is there some confusion talking about JUL vs JULI?
Gary
>
>> IIRC, Tomcat has a bridge fro
On 10/02/2012 00:20, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> I have a preference fo juli.
I can work with that.
> IIRC, Tomcat has a bridge from juli to logging impl,
It is actually the other way around. Tomcat uses a package renamed
commons-logging hard-coded to output to juli by default. It provides a
package r
I have a preference fo juli. IIRC, Tomcat has a bridge from juli to
logging impl, it would help to keep [pool] dependencies-less.
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at
One of the big design decisions left for pool2 is whether or not to add
logging. If logging is added then that opens up the what to log and with
which logging framework questions.
I do think some form of logging is required.
See POOL-131 for one example of where logging could be useful.
I have a
23 matches
Mail list logo
