commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [logging] Cleanup of trunk
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:18:06 GMT
On 2013-01-15 09:56, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
>>>>> use for old and older applications.
>>>>> That said, I just checked and saw tomcat is still using commons-logging:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/build.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe Mark will comment here.
>>>>
>>>> Tomcat 6 (min JDK 5) will certainly stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x
>>>> Tomcat 7 (min JDK 6) will probably stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x
>>>> Tomcat 8 (min JDK 7) will - at the moment - look to upgrade to whatever
>>>> the latest version is.
>>>
>>> Just out of interest... why the love with Commons Logging and not for
>>> example slf4j?
>>
>> It was the best choice at the time and no-one has made a good argument
>> for changing.
>>
>> Tomcat used C-L to create JULI which is package renamed (to avoid
>> conflicts if a webapp uses C-L), hard coded to use java.util.logging and
>> has a custom LogManager that actually works properly in a
>> multi-classloader container environment - don't get me started on how
>> bad the default one is.
>>
>> There is an optional package that adds back in the (still package
>> renamed) full version of commons logging and provides an adaptor for log4j.
>>
>> So Tomcat's requirements are:
>> - easy to package rename (technically and legally)
>> - pluggable for multiple back-ends
>> - won't clash with anything a webapp does
>>
>> Commons Logging meets all of those requirements. Other logging
>> frameworks may also meet them but they'd have to offer an awful lot more
>> to justify the work that would be required to refactor JULI to use them.
>> It isn't as if there are any features missing in C-L that Tomcat
>> needs/wants.
> 
> Thanks for the insight.
> 
> Maybe it would be interesting to change the targets of commons-logging.
> 
> Currently it is in direct competition with slf4j (logging facade which
> connects to different other frameworks). And as that its pretty
> outdated and just of use for a few.
> 
> But what if commons-logging would have the target to be minimal, easy
> to repackage and maybe does even provide a basic logging
> implementation.

It already includes a basic logging implementation: SimpleLog.

> The other frameworks come up with a lot of features which often comes
> with a lot of complexity and sometimes a cost in performance.
> commons-logging could solve this.
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 


-- 
Dennis Lundberg

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


Mime
View raw message