Jason4j,
The wrapper is specific to Log4j, we could make it non-specific,
but then we
get into writting our own logging infrastructer, which is not something I
would suggest.
...
What is your beef with log4j? I still don't understand why you
want it to go.
Jason, my view is extremly
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:26:26PM -0700, Jason Dillon wrote:
The wrapper is specific to Log4j, we could make it non-specific, but
then we get into writting our own logging infrastructer, which is
not something I would suggest.
Why on earth would you need to do something like that? All you'd
Jason Dillon wrote:
You people are all insane. The size is small, and can be made even smaller if
it really needs to be. Having light weight clients does not mean we must
drop all client-side logging or hack together our own ultra-minimal logging
framework or revert to
Jason, my view is extremly simple. While I do see a hugggee interest in
log4j (I do really love it, be sure of that, I do) and I even do see a
huee interest in log4j on the client side ***while***
developping/debugging, I see absolutely *no* interest in log4j (that I
still love)
Jason,
Which is the part you don't understand?
Cheers,
Sacha
Um... what?
--jason
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas --
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-561683 ] Remove log4j dependency on
client side
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:26:20 +0200
Jason,
Which is the part you don't understand?
Cheers,
Sacha
Log4j is our logging infrastructure, server and client side... why would we
want to remove that?
--jason
On Wednesday 29 May 2002 03:26 am, Sacha Labourey wrote:
Jason,
Which is the part you don't understand?
Cheers,
Sacha
Um... what?
--jason
: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-561683 ] Remove log4j dependency on
client side
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:26:20 +0200
Jason,
Which is the part you don't understand?
Cheers,
Sacha
Um... what?
--jason
Log4j is our logging infrastructure, server and client side...
why would we
want to remove that?
?!!???
Log4j is our logging infrastructure on the *server* side, yes. But the
client side isn't *your* infrastructure but the user's infrastructure. What
if the user wants to use another log4j
Log4j is our logging infrastructure on the *server* side, yes. But the
client side isn't *your* infrastructure but the user's infrastructure. What
if the user wants to use another log4j version? etc. our client side code
mustn't be so intrusive.
JBoss code is running on both sides. We don't
]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-561683 ] Remove log4j dependency on
client side
Log4j is our logging infrastructure, server and client side...
why would we
want to remove that?
?!!???
Log4j is our logging infrastructure on the *server* side, yes
Why do you want it out? You must have had a reason to send the
email. Can
you explain what your pain was and perhaps we can find a better
solution to
it (other than ditching log4j on the client).
Yes. I agree that we need to have tools to debug our stuff. My problem is
that log4j is only
Yes. I agree that we need to have tools to debug our stuff. My problem is
that log4j is only used for debugging but in reality it means that that
all beans in production now must have log4j on the client side.
This is not true, log4j is used to indicate errors and warnings as well.
It is
]
To: Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-561683 ] Remove log4j dependency on
client side
Note, we should be using log4j-core.jar on the client, to reduce the
footprint. I have not checked to see
|If I am remember well, we never use log4j directly, right? but a wrapper
|class? What I meant was: couldn't we make the wrapper not require log4j by
|default.
clearly please no log4j on the client, test or no test on our part
please no... let's keep it lightweight,
marcf
|
|
You people are all insane. The size is small, and can be made even smaller if
it really needs to be. Having light weight clients does not mean we must
drop all client-side logging or hack together our own ultra-minimal logging
framework or revert to System.out/printStackTrace garbage.
Log4j
16 matches
Mail list logo
