Ehh... I don't think anyone would say that "commons logging is such a great thing" in the first place. You'll find plenty of info to the contrary. Besides, JCL is targeted at reusable libraries / embedded things and Tomcat doesn't fit that and so it doesn't use it. ~ David
Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks for the links Hoss, I personally wouldn't prefer to use a framework > for something built into Java itself. Infact, this discussion prompted me > to > think about why Tomcat is not using commons-logging if it is such a great > thing. > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Chris Hostetter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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: >> >> 1) JDK logging is first and foremost an API, with a default >> implementation. If people spent as much time writing implementations of >> that API as they do writing other logging frameworks, or tweaking apps to >> work with multiple frameworks, the world would be a much better place. >> >> 2) If we do switch from something as universal as JDK logging to a >> differnet framework, then commons logging in particular is a really bad >> choice. It is not ment to be a "logging framework" used by applications, >> it exists to be an abstraction to protect small libraries from needing >> to worry about the logging framework choices of hte applications that use >> them. In the words of Rod Waldhoff... >> >> http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/2003/08/15.html >> >> "In fact, there are very limited circumstances in which Commons >> Logging >> >> is useful. If you're building a stand-alone application, don't use >> >> commons-logging. If you're building an application server, don't use >> >> commons-logging. If you're building a moderately large framework, >> don't >> >> use commons-logging. If however, like the Jakarta Commons project, >> >> you're building a tiny little component that you intend for other >> >> developers to embed in their applications and frameworks, and you >> >> believe that logging information might be useful to those clients, and >> >> you can't be sure what logging framework they're going to want to use, >> >> then commons-logging might be useful to you. >> >> >> : Not too mention SolrJ uses commons-logging, so as it stands now Solr >> : uses two different logging mechanisms. >> >> SolrJ using commons logging isn't something I was particularly aware of, >> but it does in fact make sense given it's intended usage as library for >> use in other papplications. That doesn't mean Solr is using two >> differnet >> mechanisms, it means that Solr as an application is using the JDK Logging >> API, and SolrJ as a library in use by Solr is using the commons-logging >> API on top of that ... the underlying logging implementation is still up >> to the end user running Solr in their servlet container. >> >> >> -Hoss >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Solr-Logging-tp16836646p17028232.html Sent from the Solr - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
