+1 keep commons-logging
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Yes,
and that's why commons-logging is the only viable solution. Although
commons-logging apparently has its problems, those problems might be fixed
in newer versions. There are people specifically thinking about the logging
problem in the commons-logging project, so let them figure out that, so that
we can concentrate on developing Wicket. Creating Yet Another Logging
Wrapper is not preferrable.
+1 for staying with commons-logging, provided we keep up with newer
versions.
Martijn
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Namens Donnerstag, Juergen
Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2004 12:50
Aan: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Onderwerp: AW: AW: AW: [Wicket-user] Wicket; Package
com.voicetribe.util.code
Chris,
I would therefore suggest that commons-logging is actually a valid
technical choice in the
case of Wicket. The only other solution is to include a custom
logging
API and implementation
that Wicket uses directly and into which users can plug a particular
logging implementation
(e.g. log4j or java.util.logging) as part of the application settings.
Isn't this what ICodeBroadcaster was about and what we just removed?
Regards
Juergen
-Ursprngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Im Auftrag von Chris Turner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. November 2004 12:23
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Wicket-user] Wicket; Package com.voicetribe.util.code
-1 for log4j
In many projects that I am involved in, java.util.logging is the
preferred/required logging framework - usually due to corporate policy.
I would therefore not want a requirement on log4j as this leads to extra
library, configuration and log management requirements. Some organisations I
have worked for would explicitly preclude use of Wicket if it depended on
log4j.
Having read the article I found its content to be very misleading and full
of FUD. On the surface the article tends to give the message that
commons-logging is problematical and should be avoided at all cost.
However, when you read between the lines, the problem is not that people
choose to use commons logging. The problem is in fact the way that some
application server vendors have implemented classloading and logging within
their offerings - particularly when they ship their application server with
commons-logging included. Incidentally, JBoss has very similar issues with
classloading, conflicting logging and so on and it uses log4j directly and
there is no commons-logging in sight. The arguments against commons-logging
such as applications taking over logging control, difficulty in tracking
down application server bugs and so on have nothing to do with a project
deciding to use commons-logging.
These are issues that must be dealt with by the application server vendor.
From my interpretation, the article was actually recommending the following
(although it didn't make it explicitly clear):
1) If you are the developers of an actual deliverable application that will
not be integrated with other products then pick one particular logging
strategy and use it directly
2) If you are the developers of an application server then fix your
classloading logging so that there are no conflicts with the logging
strategy of other products or libraries
3) If you are developing a reusable library that will be used by many people
then commons-logging is a suitable solution (despite its weaknesses)
I would therefore suggest that commons-logging is actually a valid technical
choice in the case of Wicket. The only other solution is to include a
custom logging API and implementation that Wicket uses directly and into
which users can plug a particular logging implementation (e.g. log4j or
java.util.logging) as part of the application settings.
regards,
Chris
Donnerstag, Juergen wrote:
In the light of the article mentioned above, and I think it is very
profound, I agree to switch to log4j.
+1
Regards
Juergen
P.S: I'll gather the votes over the next 2 weeks.
-Ursprngliche Nachricht-
Von: Gwyn Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 22:52
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: AW: [Wicket-user] Wicket; Package com.voicetribe.util.code
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:51:37 +0100, Donnerstag, Juergen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is true. It has been discussed about 2 weeks before to replace
ICodeBroadcaster with commons-logging.
It may be a bit late, but can I ask that if you've not read this
(http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp) and the links it points to,
would you *please* do so...
Gwyn
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download
