On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: I know logging is sometimes a religious debate, but would others
consider a
: patch that switched Solr to use log4j? Or, commons-logging? I
just don't
: think JUL is up to snuff when it comes to logging. It's a PITA to
configure,
: is not flexible, doesn't play nice with other logging systems and,
all in all,
: just seems like crappy design by committee where the lowest common
denominator
: won out.
I'm opposed to this. and I'vealready said everything i think needs to
be said about the topic in this thread...
http://www.nabble.com/Changing-Logging-in-Solr-to-Apache-Commons-Logging-to9728394.html
...I won't rehash all my points again, except to reiterate that:
FWIW, Hoss, I don't think your main argument for JUL stands anymore (I
finally got caught up on the archives). Namely, Solr is used in
embedded situations much more now and it should no longer be assumed
that it is in a standalone servlet completely isolated from the rest
of the world. I do agree on Commons Logging, though, as not being the
right choice, although some fairly popular things do use Commons
(Spring being one of the most notable) it seems to me that SLF4J is a
lot nicer and plays nice with Jetty and others. In theory, if one
took the Solr example in Jetty 6 and tried to configure logging there
to do something other than console, AFAICT, then one would have two
different logging systems in place (not too mention commons via
HttpClient if using SolrJ)
If I had to pick, it would either be Log4j, which is still the
standard in my opinion, even if 1.5 ships with logging, and requires
no code to play nice in most situations. Otherwise, SLF4J, which
allows one to easily decide what one to pick and avoids the
classloading issues that plague commons.
-Grant
