avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Question on LogKit
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:38:54 GMT
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 05:53, Carlos Cardenas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I already browse the documentation for LogKit and I
> could not figure out the relationship with Log4J.

No relationship at all.

> It seems that both products do pretty mucho the same.

mostly ;)

> Any one knows what's going on with logkit, log4j and
> jdk core logging?

JDK logging and Log4j are direct competitors. They essentially do all the 
same things. Log4j is technically better in a number of ways. It has 

* object renderers
* "inheritance" of priorities, appenders and localisation resources
* a wider variety of appenders
* order independent category setting
* Faster than Logging JSR
etc

The Logging JSR also has some good points - two of the best is that it has 
far superior naming semantics and that it is a standard.

LogKit is different in that it does not attempt to cover the breadth that the 
other two toolkits try to do. LogKit does not attempt to do localisation 
(that should be done in another part of API IMHO). 

It is also "Secure" by default. Where Log4j allows you to access parent of 
current Logger/Category - LogKit does not. Thus Log4j would allow any child 
you pass a Category to modify any logger in whole tree (thus it could choose 
to shutdown logging of authentication module just before doing some nasty 
stuff etc). It also protects root logger behind facade (So as to avoid any 
funny buisness).

LogKit also does not provide support for passing in "source" of logging. Both 
Log4j and JDK Logging allow you to specify "this logging message came from 
class foo". This is of course error prone and insecure. Log4j has it slightly 
better in that it can also autodetect caller but this is expensive operation.

LogKit also does not encourage accessing Loggers via statics (where both 
other APIS mandate it etc).

So I guess the main difference between LogKit and others is that LogKit is 
faster, lightweight and does not support insecure or poor logging practices.

> Is LogKit intended to be a facade for log4j? and other
> for that matter?

nope

> Are logKit and log4j competing code bases?

yes and no. Yes because they both do logging, no because they have fairly 
different performance and design characteristerics.

> is one gonna use the other in the (present) future?
>
> is there plans for developing one and decomissioning
> (or do maintainance only) over the other?

Unfortunately not. I tried to get Ceki to cooperate but it wasn't meant to be 
;)
 
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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message