directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Trustin Lee <trus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: upgrading to nlog4j.1.2.17
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:24:52 GMT
2005/10/12, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com>:
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > Once you understand Paul Hammant's argument of "No Logging",
> > things get very clear indeed.


This monitor pattern is overengineering IMHO. Why should I add extra methods
whenever I write debug log messages and provide a bridge for known logging
frameworks? And we can say using monitors is implementing AOP almost by
hand.

However, as Paul says: "the main point is the proper way to abstract logging
> type and destination is to hide all logging implementation behind an
> interface." I agree. And at this point, since we have a standard, perhaps
> it is time to follow Tomcat's lead: ditch all other logging APIs, and use
> the standard. If the standard needs change, that can happen via the JCP.
> Log4J and others would still have their place as implementations of the
> standard, but as APIs they would go away.


Standard is good, but is java.util.logging de-facto standard really? There
are a lot of projects that use other logging frameworks, and that's why
projects like MX4J provides their own layer of logging which is not that
pretty. Commons-logging was a nice try, but ppl doesn't seem to like it due
to its hard traceability though I think it is OK because we know what
problem is.

It would be really great if the ASF members and committers come to a mutual
agreement on which logging framework we will use.

Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/

Mime
View raw message