directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Faiz <n...@atlassian.com>
Subject Re: [apacheds] Which logging framework?
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:08:52 GMT
Hi,
    My own inclinations would be to take the framework with least 
complexity - log4j. No one seems to write articles about how log4j is 
difficult and has resource loading issues. The patch works and lays the 
ground for putting in proper logging. Commons logging seems to have 
known problems: for example, http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp .

    I also think planning needs to be put into (a) how logging will 
cooperate with a container, in an embedded situation and (b) what kind 
of logging the server will offer in general through an administrative 
interface. The last point, b, is more complex but can still be catered 
for by log4j.

    I'm saying this objectively. The patch took me an hour or so to 
create, Im not really hung up on using it. I just think log4j has the 
path of least resistance here. Really, Id like to see logging added, 
that's all. :)

Cheers,
Nick

Trustin Lee wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2005/6/29, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org 
> <mailto:elecharny@apache.org>>:
>
>     > The Directory Server is not an app server, but do keep in mind
>     that when we are embedding, the better citizen that we can be in
>     that embedded environment, the better.  And we also have
>     components of our own, since as triggers, stored procedures, etc.
>
>     Guys, actually a lot of the Apache DS code is based on commons-log,
>     other parts rely on java.util.logging, and the remaining use log4j.
>
>  
> I believe ApacheDS can be used for both embedded and standalone 
> purporse eventually.
>
>     >From *my* point of view, log4j is perfect for what we are doing
>     actually.
>
>     Now, answering Trustin question, using java.util.logging doesn't seems
>     *to me* a very good idea. It has the same drawback than log4j - cf
>     Marc
>     & Noel answers - and it does not compare with log4j in term of
>     fonctionality, or tooling.
>
>  
> It looks like java.util.logging is less convinient than Log4J or 
> Commons-Logging.
>
>     If I have to make a choice, based on what ApacheDS will be in two
>     years,
>     it may be :
>     1) commons-logging/Juli + log4j
>     2) log4j
>     3) java.util.logging
>
>  
> If commons logging team is fixing the issue Stephane addressed as Noel 
> mentioned, I'd like to go to the choice #1 because I believe commons 
> logging is widely deployed and almost everyone knows how to use it.
>  
> Actually I don't think the dynamic loading issue is not really 
> critical because we already know about it IMHO.
>  
> Trustin
> -- 
> what we call human nature is actually human habit
> --
> http://gleamynode.net/



-- 
ATLASSIAN - http://www.atlassian.com/    

Confluence - the enterprise wiki - tried it yet?
http://www.atlassian.com/confluence/
--


Mime
View raw message