Dain, can you give a pointer to some doco on own logging interface that mx4j project did?
thanks, adi > -----Original Message----- > From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:31 PM > To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: coding standard and logging > > > I would like to restate my suggestion that YOKO simply develop their > own logging interface like the mx4j project did. This makes it very > easy to adapt to any solution. > > -dain > > On Apr 6, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Nolan, Edell wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 06 April 2006 16:07 > > To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: coding standard and logging > > > > Lars Kühne wrote, On 4/5/2006 9:30 PM: > > > >> Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> > >>> Lars Kühne wrote, On 4/4/2006 4:05 PM: > >>> > >>>> Nolan, Edell wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 2) The last email for the logging - is below We could use the > >>>>> LogUtils class from celtix which is using the > >>>>> jdk1.5 logging. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think there was strong opposition against JDK logging because > >>>> people love log4j. I think the consensus was to define our own > >>>> logger interface and inject that in ORB.init(). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> What are our target JDK versions again? Do we start w/ JDK14 or > >>> JDK13? I am of the opinion that we use the vanilla > logger for JDK14 > >>> or, if we start w/ JDK13, log4j. In either case I do not see the > >>> need for a specialized logger interface that's injected; I'm > >>> interested in hearing opinion on this. > >>> > >> > >> JDK 1.3 will be end-of-lifed by Sun this summer, so I > think we should > >> ignore it. > >> > >> Re logging, where I work we use log4j on JDK 1.4. I think that is a > >> pretty common scenario, and using vanilla j.u.logging will not > >> integrate well with the rest of our apps. If you want to > support both > >> you either have to use some logger abstraction, and a logger > >> interface > >> is the best abstraction I can come up with. > > > > Makes sense. What about slf4j? > > > >> Re minimum JDK: I would like to also bring JDK 1.5 into > the picture, > >> but maybe that should go into another thread. > > > > > > Yes, if our minimum JDK is 1.4 then I assume that we would work > > under JDK1.5; er, at least if you don't use Geronimo as an > > example. :) > > > > Regards, > > Alan. > > > > I seen on the geronimo dev list > > > > "We already support JDK 1.5 except for CORBA. Because of > the CORBA > > limitation Geronimo can't be certified on JDK 1.5, but if > you leave > > CORBA disabled (and turn off the DayTrader sample application) > > Geronimo should run fine on 1.5. > > > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > " > > > > My vote is to start with jdk1.5 and it seems geronimo already has > > support for jdk1.5. > > > > Edell. > > > > > > > >
