Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/search?q=log4j+vs+1.4
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
Cheers,
Scott
Steve Cohen wrote:
> I am in the position of recommending the adoption of either something like log4j or
>the
Sorry about the duplication. (Yeah, I know, now I've compounded the error). I joined
the list, tried the first post, never heard back, reread the welcome and figured my
message wasn't published because I hadn't confirmed. So I confirmed, rewrote message
and was then surprised to find my orig
> I am in the position of recommending a switch to either log4j or
> jdk 1.4 from a roll-your-own system that has outgrown its
> original usefulness.
I would go for log4j... but thn you are asking in the wrong place IMHO. This
is a log4j user list... I am guessing this makes most of us biased tow
pril 10, 2002 6:14 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
> I am in the position of recommending a switch to either log4j or
> jdk 1.4 from a roll-your-own system that has outgrown its
> original usefulness.
I would go for log4j... but thn you are asking in the wro
Steve,
I am one of the biased ones, as you may have noticed in the archives. I
started using log4j before I knew about the 1.4 logging api. At the time,
log4j was the clear winner due to:
- Design. It is one of the most flexible, configurable logging tools I have
seen.
- Extensibility. It is
i would strongly suggest that you switch your application to using the logging
interface in
the jakarta commons package. then, you are free to plug in either log4j or jdk1.4.
the
great flaw of both of these packages is that they were not coded from an interface,
and
the interface they offe
apira
>-Original Message-
>From: Edward Q. Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:41 PM
>To: Log4J Users List; Steve Cohen
>Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
>
>i would strongly suggest that you switch your application to using the
>
]
-Original Message-
From: Edward Q. Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:41 PM
To: Log4J Users List; Steve Cohen
Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
i would strongly suggest that you switch your application to using the logging
interface in
the jakarta commons
e Sports, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Q. Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:41 PM
> To: Log4J Users List; Steve Cohen
> Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
>
>
> i would strong
BTW, I couldn't find that information in the Commons documentation.
-Original Message-
From: Edward Q. Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:10 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Steve Cohen
Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
i'm not familiar enoug
April 11, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: Edward Q. Bridges; Log4J Users List
> Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
>
>
> BTW, I couldn't find that information in the Commons documentation.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Q. Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
st'; Edward Q. Bridges
> Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
>
>
> The commons-logging will support log4j 1.1.3 and not log4j 1.2. If you
> download the api, they have a wrapper which act as the
> factory framework.
> For log4j 1.2 a new wrapper need to be written.
&g
nt: April 11, 2002 1:06 PM
> To: 'Log4J Users List'
> Subject: RE: log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging
>
>
> I find this curious since 1.2 is supposed to be backward
> compatible with
> 1.1.3. Does the wrapper use some deprecated methods or
> something? I'm sure
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
