directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From nickf <nickf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [apacheds] Which logging framework?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:20:02 GMT
Well, log4j just works. :)

Logging is still inadequate though. It would be great to actually have
a log file appear in the server working directory, under logs. Lastly,
as Niclas pointed out, it would be great to have configurable logging
levels for the server as it ran - I think this last point can be
thought about a little later.

Ill have a chat in directory-dev about adding server_wkdir/log . I
think we'll simply have to create a FileAppender at startup, based on
the value of working dir. Perhaps it could be done in the
StartupConfiguration, within an afterPropertiesSet() call ?

Cheers,
Nick

On 6/28/05, Marc Boorshtein <mboorshtein@gmail.com> wrote:
> doesn't commons logging do just that?  let you easily migrate between
> log4j & built in logging?
> 
> marc
> 
> 
> On 6/27/05, Chris Betts <chris@pegacat.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've just finished converting JXplorer to use the built in java logging
> > framework.  It is basically a cheap rip off of log4j and isn't as good (IMHO
> > :-) ) so the only reason to use it is because it's 'built in'.  Refactoring
> > from the java.util.logging to log4j is pretty easy if you change your mind
> > down the track, btw., but going the other way is a little more work because
> > log4j does some tricks that java.util.logging doesn't.
> >
> > I used the built in stuff for JXplorer because it means you can reuse the
> > classes in other projects more easily - you don't have to worry about adding
> > the log4j jar.  There's a bunch of utility classes in JX that I and others
> > want to use in other projects.  However if you're not so concerned about
> > code reuse, log4j is better.  And log4j is an apache project now, so it's
> > not even '3rd party' :-).
> >
> >    - Chris
> >
> > P.S.  For people who are really in to this stuff, the two logging systems
> > are close enough in spirit that you can probably map between the two types
> > of configuration files - as far as I can see java.util.logging is a subset
> > of log4j.  This could conceivably be useful in shops that are already wedded
> > to one system or the other.  Implementation is left as an exercise for the
> > student :-).
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2005, at 10:26 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > As you know JDK 1.4 provides logging framework out of the box.  Will we have
> > to use this default package, or use 3rd party ones like Log4J?  We're more
> > familiar with Log4J than we're with JDK logging framework, but I think it
> > would be also a good idea to use the default one because it is always there
> > as long as we work with JDK 1.4+ and it is not bad actually IMHO.
> >
> > Trustin
> > --
> > what we call human nature is actually human habit
> > --
> > http://gleamynode.net/
> >
>

Mime
View raw message