Hi all,
thanks a lot for your mails. It seems that Log4J is definitive the right choice.
Bye
Matthias
--
Matthias Petersen
ms management systems gmbh
Krokamp 29
24539 Neumünster
Fon: +49. 4321. 9995-49
Fax: +49. 4321. 9995-41
E-Mail: [EMAIL
Matthias,
Admittedly, many of us at here at log4j-user@ are biased in favor of log4j.
At 08:14 AM 10/27/2003 +0100, Matthias Petersen wrote:
Hi all,
thanks a lot for your mails. It seems that Log4J is definitive the right
choice.
Bye
Matthias
--
,
while not incurring the potential pains of Commons Logging.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Tbee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:59 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Admittedly, many of us at here at log4j-user
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:59 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Admittedly, many of us at here at log4j-user@ are biased in favor of
log4j.
Really? Naah.
-
To unsubscribe
: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Unless I am mistaken, commons-logging was always dynamic. It always used
classloader tricks to determine which logging API to use.
At 02:26 PM 10/27/2003 +0100, Tbee wrote:
If I read the commons-logging articles correctly, this is exactly how
commons-
logging came
Unless I am mistaken, commons-logging was always dynamic. It always used
classloader tricks to determine which logging API to use.
Ok, then I stand corrected (and need to reread the articles ;-).
Tom
-
To unsubscribe,
Hi,
I saw in the 1.4 JDK that there were new classes introduced concerning logging, which
seems to be a base for Log4J. When I take a look at the class hierarchy of Log4J, it is
not a subclass of those JDK logging classes (I think the reason is that Log4J is older
than the 1.4 JDK...).
So, what
log4j from JDK 1.4 logging. Use log4j.
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Petersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Hi,
I saw in the 1.4 JDK that there were
in the future.
Choosing log4j is not a bad choice because it is widely used and support
options JDK 1.4 does not support now and may not support soon.
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Petersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October, 2003 16:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Log4J vs
: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Hi,
I saw in the 1.4 JDK that there were new classes introduced concerning
logging, which
seems to be a base for Log4J. When I take a look at the class hierarchy of
Log4J, it is
not a subclass of those JDK logging classes (I think the reason is that
Log4J is older
than
]
Subject: RE: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Howdy,
http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.html
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/Log4jvsJDKLog
ging
http://builder.com.com/5100-22-1046694.html
Log4j will be around. The next major release, v1.3, is going to have
several
PROTECTED]
Subject: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Hi,
I saw in the 1.4 JDK that there were new classes introduced concerning
logging, which
seems to be a base for Log4J. When I take a look at the class hierarchy of
Log4J, it is
not a subclass of those JDK logging classes (I think the reason is that
Log4J
Howdy,
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/Log4jvs
JDKL
ogging
I modified and edited the above page. Please let me know what you
think.
I took a look -- I like it ;) I corrected a couple of small text
errors. I would like to add a link to the phrase that says log4j
Let me, as a log4j user, give my 2 cents. I looked at the Java 1.4
logging classes and decided they were inferior to log4j. Since log4j is
an external JAR, it will not only be available in JDK1.4 but also in
1.5, ... and you can already use them in 1.3. So log4j is the way to go.
Tom
Matthias
Some people may disagree
Yup ;-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh, and let me add another opinion to my own mail. I think that adding
more and more functionality to the JVM (what Sun is doing now) is not a
good thing. I prefer a lean mean core engine and addon JARs. Want SSL?
Add SSL.jar. Want logging? Add logging.jar. Want RDBMS? Add JDBC.jar.
I'd vote
great point. Hopefully someone at Sun is listening.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Eugelink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:26 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Oh, and let me add another opinion to my own mail. I think
Isn't that what JCP is for?
;-)
-Marc
-Original Message-
From: Lutz Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:55 PM
To: 'Log4J Users List'
Subject: RE: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
great point. Hopefully someone at Sun is listening.
-Original
-Original Message-
From: Tom Eugelink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:26 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: Log4J vs. java.util.logging
Oh, and let me add another opinion to my own mail. I think
that adding more and more functionality to the JVM (what Sun
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPage
s/Log4jvsJDKLogging
I modified and edited the above page. Please let me know what
you think.
Much better. Thanks!
The biggest reasons to use log4j, in my mind, are:
1) It is opensource, so if you need to make changes or add
20 matches
Mail list logo
