ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Ant2 logging
Date Thu, 10 May 2001 03:56:18 GMT
At 01:13  10/5/01 +1000, Tim Vernum wrote:
>
>From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>
>> on 5/9/01 7:56 PM, "Tim Vernum" <Tim.Vernum@macquarie.com.au> wrote:
>
>> > Why?
>> > Why do you care what toolkit Ant uses to do the logging?
>> 
>> Simply put:
>> 
>>     I want choice.
>
>Choice for choice's sake doesn't make much sense to me.
>It's just the colour of the bike shed.

agreed.

>If either of the logging kits offers real differences for the end user,
then can someone please post them, but so far I haven't seen a convincing
argument on that point from anyone.

Not really much difference. Logkit is faster, simpler, smaller and
lightweight whereas log4j is more a logging framework. In log4j you can do
much more and create other logging toolkits based on it (ie create own
categories, priorities etc). It pays for this in complexity.

>If there's no end user difference, then Ant should use the one that
simplest for the developer.

+100000000000000
;)

>> It is such a thin layer that I don't think this is an issue. I already
>> posted the code.
>
>But does it do everything that we need?
>(Honest question)

nope - see last mail. We need hierarchial categories.

However what ever system we end up using will need to be simple enough to
write adapters to from "ant native" debugging to whatever underlying system
we use.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message