On May 3, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
If a large subset of the community is in favor of moving away from
JUL
towards some alternative (and I'm not sure that's true),
Perhaps we should take a poll on solr-user? On the dev list, I
there are a few strong opinions, but I suspect most people don't
really care (as long as it works).
a) Use it only if it's "default" behavior can be set to defer to the
configured JUL LogManager (This is basicly "mandatory" in my
opinion, since otherwise Solr won't be backwards compatible)
Absolutely -- the logging behavior in solr.war must be identical to
how it behaved directly using JUL. Any existing configurations must
work without external modifications.
If we are unable to do this with SLF4J, I would change my +1 to a -1
Definitely agree. Not only that, but I would say the performance has
to be as good or better, too.
b) Note in our documentation that Solr's usage of this abstraction is
"experimental" and may be changed in future releases (If we
encounter problems with it or decide there is some *better*
abstraction) and that configuring a JUL LogManager is the
recommended way to recieve logging messages from Solr.
That sounds fine -- the "Recommended" way to use solr is with the
released .war file. This will use JUL by default.
I suggest the next step is to verify that (a) is true -- make a JIRA
issue -- then ask solr-user how they feel about it...
Totally agree.
