Hi,
I didn't follow the whole debate in Hadoop mail list about SLF4J vs JCL so
my comment may be irrelevant. However, apart of class loader issues in JCL,
did anybody considered performance benefits of SLF4J over JCL?
I have switched to SLF4J recently and I found it very handy. Especially the
synt
Michael Stack wrote:
Doug Cutting wrote:
I have used the JVM's built-in logging and found it lacking.
Do you remember what the holes in JUL were?
Sorry, I don't remember all the details.
I note that Hadoop uses log4j's DailyRollingFileAppender, and nothing
like that is present in JUL. And
Doug Cutting wrote:
I have used the JVM's built-in logging and found it lacking.
Do you remember what the holes in JUL were? Hadoop needed the extra
facility provided by log4j's PatternLayout or it needed some of the more
exotic appenders? Or was it something else? (I don't see anything in
a
Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
I find our current use of apache commons while depending on specific
features of log4j awkward.
Yes, this isn't ideal, but an advantage is that, should we switch to a
different backend, we only need change the few log4j-specific bits, and
not every line that logs so
f) Pardon me, Torsten, are you saying a logging facade is
inappropriate
(because it is not a library or framework)? Perhaps you are
saying the
opposite?
No - you got me right :)
IMHO logging facades are better suited for frameworks ...less useful
for applications. So I am +1 for using
re you saying a logging facade is
inappropriate
(because it is not a library or framework)? Perhaps you are saying
the
opposite?
Thanks,
St.Ack
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> On 28.09.2007, at 19:23, Michael Stack wrote:
>
>> Reading the below (old) discussion of JCL vs SLF4J made me wan
rsten, are you saying a logging facade is inappropriate
(because it is not a library or framework)? Perhaps you are saying the
opposite?
Thanks,
St.Ack
Torsten Curdt wrote:
On 28.09.2007, at 19:23, Michael Stack wrote:
Reading the below (old) discussion of JCL vs SLF4J made me want to
ask i
On 28.09.2007, at 19:23, Michael Stack wrote:
Reading the below (old) discussion of JCL vs SLF4J made me want to
ask if there is anyone out there who actually makes use of the fact
that logging goes via the commons-logging intermediary? If its not
being used, why not cut to the chase and
Reading the below (old) discussion of JCL vs SLF4J made me want to ask
if there is anyone out there who actually makes use of the fact that
logging goes via the commons-logging intermediary? If its not being
used, why not cut to the chase and use log4j directly or what seems to
be just as
On 18.07.2007, at 11:06, Devaraj Das wrote:
Came across this link: http://www.slf4j.org/index.html. Got me
interested
since it makes a remark "SLF4J suffers from none of the class loader
problems or memory leaks observed with Jakarta Commons Logging
(JCL).". Is
it true that the version of c
Came across this link: http://www.slf4j.org/index.html. Got me interested
since it makes a remark "SLF4J suffers from none of the class loader
problems or memory leaks observed with Jakarta Commons Logging (JCL).". Is
it true that the version of commons-logging we use in hadoop could have
issues to
11 matches
Mail list logo
