Mailing-List: contact users-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gnodet@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAO_jESB0fez1j__29a1nvxAq6t2a6a4V9j_TfbOChJ7qZhnFrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAQ2cFZrnb7ARLR4909eO+7JEupsR56a94P8S_dCr9OCv0YpDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHXGaZ7QbKVsgH-3OPc-9xtS1P0HTsAqNtjFwdBuw2UXswOz-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO_jESB0fez1j__29a1nvxAq6t2a6a4V9j_TfbOChJ7qZhnFrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAEQV+EHX0demNi-c0ae8f=Ps9=+x3hLSRkHZVbNJJHqk8ZEeGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Urgent - PAX -logging Vs Logback
From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com>
To: users@felix.apache.org
Cc: general@lists.ops4j.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Actually, a logback backend for pax-logging has been contributed a few
weeks ago, see [1].
This hasn't been released yet, but you should have no problems giving
it a try anyway.

[1] https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/commit/8317bd6c00a62d350ae826f078e584b31cfb9a7b

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 07:38, Sam Spycher <sam@spycher.info> wrote:
> Hi Matt
>
> You may want to check this thread on the karaf list:
>
> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Running-Karaf-without-PAX-Logging-td3177504.html
>
> The gist of which is that opinions differ on pros and cons between pax
> logging (with default backend log4j) and logback. Pax is more osgi-aware
> and logback is simply the next generation of pax's backend log4j (same
> developers) .
>
> So yes a pax implementation with logback would be great. The problem with
> that seems mainly to lie with configadmin and configuration of log4j via a
> properties file vs. configuration of logback via XML: in configadmin you
> would be forced to set an entire logback XML config over one property,
> whilst currently you can configure log4j settings individually.
>
> Hth,
> Sam
>
> -
>
> Sent from my phone
> On Dec 7, 2011 9:47 PM, "Toni Menzel" <toni@okidokiteam.com> wrote:
>
>> For starters, LogBack is a Logging implementation, right ?
>> Pax Logging is a capture-all logging service for all major interfaces and
>> does provide a minimalistic implementation. But you want to use Pax Logging
>> + Logback in an OSGi scenario. Thats at least what i know of Logback.
>> Most of that knowledge i pull from times where log4j was hot. So i might be
>> wrong if log back might actually replace pax logging in some ways. That i
>> don't know.
>>
>> @Matt, you are sure cross posting this on felix, aries and ops4j ?
>>
>> cheers, Toni
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Matt Madhavan <mattmadhavan@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> > I would like to know the Pros and cons of PaxLogging vs Logback. I have
>> > used PaxLogging a lot but the my client's Enterprise team (different
>> team)
>> > that sets directions, would like to use Logback.
>> >
>> > Can someone let me know what are the pros and cons between the two and
>> > especially in the OSGi world?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
>>


-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org