directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Betts <>
Subject Re: [apacheds] Which logging framework?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:42:48 GMT
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
> --

View raw message