On Thursday 29 April 2004 18:18, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > or - refering logkit - are just simply *older* than the standard :) > > If you take a look at the logkit based logging system implementation > under the avalon-logging project there is the ability to dynamically > load (and unload) logging targets. Each logging target type has its own > specific implementation dependencies. This means that you could do > things like add a new logging target *without* taking down your system. > > Achieving this with logkit is a lot easier than achieving the same thing > with Log4J (as an example) simply because (a) LogKit is local and (b) > LogKit does not define a configuration model. To do the same thing with > Log4J would require the invention of a different/extended Log4J > configuration with another community - and that's something that takes a > lot more time.
What Steve is REALLY trying to say is that there are inherent benfits of LogKit, currently not available in Log4J, although LogKit is older. The main pro argument for LogKit over Log4J is that it allows the user (in this case Avalon Logging) to allow for the Plug-In architecture, without bringing in all the dependencies, especially the external dependencies, with the project using Avalon Logging. Depencies can be created and added in runtime later, without classloader issues. Cheers Niclas -- +---------//-------------------+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +------//----------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
