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.
what we call human nature is actually human habit