Comments on the commons-logging API

Hello all, Given that log4j is such a low-level library, most organizations are suspicious to tie their code to log4j, especially considering the new logging API in JDK 1.4. Before going forward, it is appropriate to mention that these two APIs are very similar. The classical usage pattern for

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

Shouldn't this be posted at the commons-dev list? Or, at least, ALSO at commons-dev list? Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Com

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

7;s there to allow the library components to delegate that decision to the containing application. - Rod -Original Message- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Comments on the commons-logging API Hello all, Given t

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Ceki, I'm not sure I understand very well this. I think we have a consensus on few items ( and you seem to just repeat them ): - JDK1.4 logging is not useable as a 'standard logging API' ( even if it is released under JCP ) - log4j is the best logger ( for Peter and few others: logkit is th

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 11:49 27.03.2002 -0600, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: >But this isn't really the reason commons-logging was created. Note that >most of the commons components are just that--tiny libraries meant to be >integrated/incorporated into larger frameworks and larger applications. >Some of these components

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

- Original Message - From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 2:43 PM Subject: RE: Comments on the commons-logging API > At 11:49 27.03.2002 -0600, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: &g

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > If your library chooses to use logging API XYZ, this does not impose > XYZ to the clients of your library. Your clients can use the logging > library they prefer (if they are using logging API) and your library > can use XYZ. And the user will have to co

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 15:18 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: >Here's the problem, as I see it. > >Suppose Commons component A decides to adopt Log4J, Commons component B >decides to adopt LogKit, and Commons component C adopts JDK1.4 logging. >They will all minimally function with the right jars in the cla

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 10:15 27.03.2002 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >The goal is not to be able to change the logger at compile time, but to be > >able to detect the platform logger and use it. The only way to do that is > >via a standard API - and commons-logging seems

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > So, if I understand correctly the reason for adopting commons-logging > API is for convenience rather than non-intrusiveness as a library > (with respect to logging). The goals of commons-logging ( as I understand them ): - non-intrusiveness - convenience

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

- Original Message - From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > At 15:18 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote:

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Costin, Morgan, Rodney, Thanks for the lively discussion and sharing your points of view. My intent was to warn users of the dangers of using common-logging. I have done my bit. Cheers, Ceki At 16:31 27.03.2002 -0600, Morgan wrote: >I believe the order of precedence is well documented. I think

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:11 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Comments on the commons-logging API >> >> >> >>Hello all, >> >>Given that log4j is such a low-level library, most organizations are >>suspicious t

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

> From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Yes, the defining advantage to the commons-logging API that I see is that > it > allows users to adopt a single logging implementation, which confers real What needs to be appended to that statement is "...if everyone codes to the commons-

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Yes, the defining advantage to the commons-logging API that I see is > that > > it > > allows users to adopt a single logging implementation, which confers > real > > What needs to be appen

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

- Original Message - From: "Jeff Schnitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:12 PM Subject: RE: Comments on the commons-logging API > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: >Where is this world where "everyone" uses Log4J? That world = (world - jakarta) -- Ceki My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

- Original Message - From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

"Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 15:10 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: > >> Where is this world where "everyone" uses Log4J? > > That world = (world - jakarta) I tend to agree with Ceki! :) I never used it until I didn't move on from Jakarta and went to do some real work f

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: >I am pro-Log4J. I wish I lived in that Log4J-only world (until/unless >something better came along). Generally, commons-logging neither encourages >nor discourages use of Log4J. However, I would argue that it _does_ >encourage Log4J a bit by

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

- Original Message - From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: &

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

Now your motivation is becoming clear. Have fun, Paulo > -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:18 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > > > At 15:10

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > True. It does encourage it, but only initially. On the long run, > however, people will run into problems with their logging (as is > happening now). They will say this commons-logging+log4j stuff is too > complicated, we'll switch to JDK 1.4 logging, at l

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

You could at least try to be well informed and inform well when you talk about other logging APIs. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:14 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject:

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 16:33 28.03.2002 -0600, you wrote: > > Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the > > bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in > > the way. > >That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Hmm, maybe it is. What I am trying to say is that I would have like

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 16:33 28.03.2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the > > > bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in > > > the way. > > > >That's a bit harsh, isn't it? > > Hmm, maybe

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Costin, I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However, I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-logging really useful they will build a community around it. What I say or think wo

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

> > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:14 PM > > To: Jakarta General List > > Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > > > > > > At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: > > > > &

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However, > I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something > I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-logging really > useful > they will build a com

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

> -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I never suspected (nor suggested) that commons-logging effort > was dishonorable in any way. My contention is that it will > make life harder not easier. Nothing more, nothing less. > I think it may make life harder

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:13, Scott Sanders wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Ceki Glc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I never suspected (nor suggested) that commons-logging effort > > was dishonorable in any way. My contention is that it will > > make life harder not easier. Nothing mor

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 16:56 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > I think you have done a pretty good job on the log4j wrapper. However, > > I am pretty stretched out as it is, so I can't really help with something > > I don't particularly like. Besides, if people find commons-lo

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:38, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > 1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through > an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact Not in modern JVMs (read most almost all jdk1.3 impls). As long as the underlying indirection (ie between c

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

> god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before > commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one. Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging? I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projects use this common-logging package? What'

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > The problem with logging is different because: > > 1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through > an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact Only for the logger that do not implement the interface :-) If L

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:28, Vladimir Bossicard wrote: > > god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before > > commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one. > > Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging? its own. The commons logger

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Wait a minute, I know you... You are the apricot (http://sourceforge.net/projects/apricot/) guy. In the fairy tale "The Emperor's new clothes," what was the name of the child who calls "He's naked. The man in the crown is naked" Was it Vladimir Bossicard? At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you w

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

+1 We have to be Pro Choice. For better or worse its part of the way things are done. If there is to be one logging API it will emerge with least pain through natural wasteage. Abbot of Citeaux, leading the 13th Century crusade against the Albigensians thundered: “Kill them all, God will kno

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

The interesting case is of course measuring performance when logging is turned off. Here is a little experiment. My CLASSPATH: CLASSPATH=.;/java/jdk1.3.1/jre/lib/rt.jar;/home/cgu/ASF/jakarta-log4j-1.2beta4/dist/lib/log4j-1.2beta4.jar;commons-logging-1.0/commons-logging.jar I have written two

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Try changing your code to loop 10,000 times or so before you start the real test. This will make sure the JVMs are warmed up and all systems are configured properly. That should drop the difference even more in theory. On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:48, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > The interesting case is of

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

Good point, except that the loop length was 100'000'000 so the cost of the first 10'000 calls would be dwarfed by the remaining 99'990'000. Of course there is also: ~/>java Indirect 1 log4j: Parsing threshold string [WARN] log4j: Could not find root logger information. Is this OK? log4j: Fin

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote: >>god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before >>commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one. > > >Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging? > >I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projec

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On 3/28/02 5:14 PM, "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Possible but I would not be that sure. We will have very strong new > features in log4j 1.3 (the release after 1.2) which will leave JDK 1.4 > logging even further behind. Just as importantly, log4j documentation > is going to get

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

> Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you > might was well > support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and > extend'. Just > do the JSR47 stuff better :) Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not completely clear about all this..) -- To unsubs

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote: > > Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you > > might was well > > support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and > > extend'. Just > > do the JSR47 stuff better :) > > Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm s

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On 3/29/02 10:36 AM, "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you >> might was well >> support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and >> extend'. Just >> do the JSR47 stuff better :) > > Could Log4J now become an RI o

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote: >>> Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you >>> might was well >>> support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and >>> extend'. Just >>> do the JSR47

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote: > >>> Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you > >>> might was well > >>> support their interfaces and semanti

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

On 3/29/02 11:05 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote: > Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's,

Re: Comments on the commons-logging API

> Wait a minute, I know you... You are the apricot > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/apricot/) guy. In the fairy tale "The > Emperor's new clothes," what was the name of the child who calls > > "He's naked. The man in the crown is naked" > > Was it Vladimir Bossicard? I'm pretty sure I wa

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

At 15:36 29.03.2002 +, Danny Angus wrote: > > Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you > > might was well > > support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and > > extend'. Just > > do the JSR47 stuff better :) > >Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm s

RE: Comments on the commons-logging API

Not to mention the problems of supporting multiple versions of Log4j. But I really think this discussion belongs in the commons-dev mail list. Ceki is making criticisms against an API etc, that really should be taken up in the appropriate forum. On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 20:13, Scott Sanders wrote: