Hi All,
java.util.logging is really getting me down - I never really paid much
attention to it because I've always used log4j in the past, but it
looks like it can't do things like change the format of the logs using
a config file, do mapped diagnostic contextes, etc..
Does anyone have any issue
It would be relatively easily to write a Formatter class that takes a
string suitable for use with MessageFormat, and then configure that
and its pattern in a config file. Maybe 20 lines of code. But yeah I
don't know of something out of the box.
I suppose the idea is that the -jcl or -log4j depen
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
> I suppose the idea is that the -jcl or -log4j dependency is only
> needed at runtime to bind to your preferred logging system. You can
> and should change it according to your taste.
So, as you probably know , jcl from the slf4j perspective me
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
> So, as you probably know , jcl from the slf4j perspective means
> jakarta commons-logging. commons-logging will log to either
> java.util.logging or log4j depending on the presence of the log4j jar.
> There's no need to switch to slf4j-log4j h
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
> So we have sl4fj -> JCL -> log4j, wow, just to log stuff. What can you do, I
> suppose.
Yeah, it seems really silly to me too. We could always go slf4j-log4j
-> log4j, but that leaves the people who don't like log4j out in the
cold, so it the
On 12/02/2010 1:17 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
Regardless, of these points, I can make the change locally, but I
think that generally slf4j -> slf4j-jcl -> log4j is probably the right
way to go.
Here are my unsolicited 2c.
slf4j-jcl is merely an slf4j adapter for jcl. So, when the SLF4J API is
i
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Here are my unsolicited 2c.
Thanks very much for chiming in Ceki. I wasn't aware one could replace
commons-logging entirely. I'll look into jcl-over-slf4j and logback.
Thanks for the pointers.
Drew
On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 1:17 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
>
>> Regardless, of these points, I can make the change locally, but I
>> think that generally slf4j -> slf4j-jcl -> log4j is probably the right
>> way to go.
>
> Here are my unsolicited 2c.
>
> slf4j-
On 12/02/2010 3:09 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
On 12/02/2010 1:17 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
Regardless, of these points, I can make the change locally, but I
think that generally slf4j -> slf4j-jcl -> log4j is probably the right
way to go.
Her
On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>>> BTW, you should consider logback [2] as an alternative to log4j.
>>
>> Ugh, not another one!
>
> Well, you can view logback as log4j 2.0.
Right, but then it would require yet another one to manage.
Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
-
Key: MAHOUT-52
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52
Project: Mahout
Issue Type: Improvement
t now there are some System.out lines in the code and
that's definitely suboptimal.
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> -
>
> Key: MAHOUT-52
> URL: https://issue
l.logging API ugly but log4j pretty. This is too subjective
to be a factor for decision.
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> -
>
> Key: MAHOUT-52
> URL: https://issue
system as well? Think about this -
it is not a minor matter.
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> -
>
> Key: MAHOUT-52
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/brows
duce
SLF4J... consider that then our combined package will use, count 'em, *four*
different logging systems.
(I really hope Hadoop standardizes here. I wonder if, eh, we can send over some
patches?)
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> ---
dize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> -
>
> Key: MAHOUT-52
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
&g
ing, Commons Logging, log4j?
> -
>
> Key: MAHOUT-52
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sean Owen resolved MAHOUT-52.
-
Resolution: Fixed
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, lo
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Karl Wettin updated MAHOUT-52:
--
Fix Version/s: 0.1
> Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, lo
d we go to SLF4J, but Log4j is good too. Do we know what
Hadoop uses? That would be the other preference.
On May 10, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Sean Owen (JIRA) wrote:
Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
-
K
On May 11, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Sean Owen (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-52?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12595942
#action_12595942 ]
Sean Owen commented on MAHOUT-52:
-
(
am intrigued. At the moment I
> personally still find the "use what Hadoop uses" argument most compelling.
> If we introduce SLF4J... consider that then our combined package will use,
> count
ve voiced some support for it, so I am intrigued. At the moment I
> > personally still find the "use what Hadoop uses" argument most compelling.
> > If we introduce SLF4J... consider that then our combined package will use,
> > count 'em, *four* different loggin
think I hear a few more votes in favor. Are we agreed? I can
> change my code then convert other System.out.println and so on.
>
> > Standardize on java.util.logging, Commons Logging, log4j?
> > -
> >
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
