On Apr 29, 2008, at 8:00 PM, David Smiley @MITRE.org wrote:
2. If you're saying (from another message I responded to) that it's
the
container's job to handle the JUL configuration in a flexible
manner, then
wouldn't it be reasonable in this scenario to tell the container to
direct
JUL to whatever it is I want (log4j in this scenario)?
JUL is the substrate that we (Java developers) should be logging to.
Practically speaking, I'd like the world to look like this:
App -> JUL -> Log4J adapter
Having log4j be the formatters and triggers and such because it's an
open source implementation with all the goodies you need for
practically any need.
I'm with Hoss here - the rant is on the containers not doing the
right thing by incorporating (something like) JULI.
Erik
