Re: How to configure Myfaces to log through logback ?
http://stackoverflow.com/a/8015884/1589700 On 23 August 2012 14:34, Ertio Lew ertio...@gmail.com wrote: How do I configure Myfaces to log through logback implementation which rest of my application uses ? Currently I'm writing logs from all parts of my application except the messages by Myfaces in log files. -- Using Myfaces 2.1.8 with Logback 1.0.6 [Glassfish 3.1 (Netbeans)]
Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Did you ever say something you really regretted? I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the logging vote two years back[1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during development, and incurring the performance hits. Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for production. How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality of using it? slf4j and myfaces http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?! On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote: Did you ever say something you really regretted? I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the logging vote two years back[1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during development, and incurring the performance hits. Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for production. How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality of using it? slf4j and myfaces http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really understand the need. Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense. SL4J was new, and I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it. If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using SL4J as the logging mechanism. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew ertio...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?! On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote: Did you ever say something you really regretted? I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the logging vote two years back[1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during development, and incurring the performance hits. Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for production. How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality of using it? slf4j and myfaces http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do everything SL4J claimed to do. But as I stated earlier, the theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real use conditions. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote: When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really understand the need. Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense. SL4J was new, and I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it. If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using SL4J as the logging mechanism. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew ertio...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?! On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote: Did you ever say something you really regretted? I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the logging vote two years back[1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during development, and incurring the performance hits. Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for production. How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality of using it? slf4j and myfaces http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Yes, things change with time may be it didn't mattered too much that time but today SL4J is the need as it is widely adopted now. So +1 for SL4J ! On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.comwrote: Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do everything SL4J claimed to do. But as I stated earlier, the theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real use conditions. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote: When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really understand the need. Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense. SL4J was new, and I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it. If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using SL4J as the logging mechanism. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew ertio...@gmail.com wrote: Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired logging SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons logging or otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?! On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote: Did you ever say something you really regretted? I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the logging vote two years back[1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1...@mail.gmail.com%3E I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during development, and incurring the performance hits. Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for production. How are other people handling this? I know at the time of the discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues. Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality of using it? slf4j and myfaces http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3c2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae...@mail.gmail.com%3E [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d057...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
