Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> OK, the solution I presented solves the "VOLUNTATRY separation of
> logging" problem. It can be further refined to address the
> "MANDATORY separation of logging" problem Costin mentions.
> Costin suggested the use of string prefixes to enforce mandatory
> separation which is
Costin Manolache wrote:
> One comment: application isolation is not a voluntary thing. If we
> want to isolate the loggers you can't allow the application to specify
> what logger it wants in web.xml and hope they'll not use the same
> name.
OK, the solution I presented solves the "VOLUNTATRY se
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> I have been a long time critic of commons-logging API for its class
> loader based approach of selecting the logging implementation. See for
> example my http://qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.html document. I think
> more reliable solutions exist. In particular, you might want to
I have been a long time critic of commons-logging API for its class
loader based approach of selecting the logging implementation. See for
example my http://qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.html document. I think
more reliable solutions exist. In particular, you might want to
consider the JNDI based solu
