commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remy Maucherat <>
Subject Re: Idea: combine JCL 2.0 and UGLI in Logging Services' CL2
Date Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:00:47 GMT
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:23:43 -0500, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
> Remy wrote:
> > My plan for JULI is to:
> What is JULI?  I know JCL, UGLI, Log4J, j.u.logging ... hmmm ... is JULI an
> acronym for j.u.l-integration?

JULI is a java.util.logging implementation. It currently lives here:

I think the API, java.util.logging, got many things right:
- the API functionality itself seems good enough to me
- it has a design making it easy to extend once you figure out the API
(no docs), since you simply have to replace the main LogManager
- it is extremely robust in a container environment (one-per-VM
singleton design for the LogManager, and the core classes are hard to
replace: this means classloading problems are almost impossible)
- really usified configuration (being in the boot classloader, any of
the VM own logging will go to it)
- security (it uses the security manager all over the place)
- handlers are simple

JULI would provide:
- LogManager implementations targetted at various containers (I am
interested in Tomcat at the moment)
- various handlers (many can be ported from existing log4j appenders)

I am certain that no API is perfect, and that java.util.logging does
have its flaws, but from a container perspective, it got some
important points right.

We'll see how well this works soon, as it is used to provide logging
defaults in the new Tomcat build (the previous defaults were using
java.util.logging as well, but with the default implementations, and
consequently didn't do anything useful).

> > Is there any pace for this in the logging project, or should I
> > seek another home ?
> If not in Logging, perhaps in Jakarta Commons?  It appears that we have
> several folks trying to move JCL to the next level, and both you and Richard
> Sitze ahould have considerable common ground in terms of needs.

I do consider commons, but commons does this funny things to your
package names, and it's a bit annoying ;) Also, I am a bit confused
about the logging project scope. Does it want to host logging related
projects or not ?

Rémy Maucherat
Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message