jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jos Potargent <jos.potarg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] log4j to commons-logging conversion
Date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:00:18 GMT
Stefan,

maybe this blog from its creator can answer your questions if you
should use it or not:
<http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/2003/08/15.html>. This is the
interesting part:

<< 
The purpose of Commons Logging is not to isolate your code from
changes in the underlying logging framework. (That's certainly easy
enough to do on your own, and not really worth doing in the first
place given the ease of switching from one logging framework to
another.) The purpose of Commons Logging is not to somehow be more
useful than actual logging frameworks by being more general. The
purpose of Commons Logging is not to somehow take the logging world by
storm. In fact, there are very limited circumstances in which Commons
Logging is useful. If you're building a stand-alone application, don't
use commons-logging. If you're building an application server, don't
use commons-logging. If you're building a moderately large framework,
don't use commons-logging. If however, like the Jakarta Commons
project, you're building a tiny little component that you intend for
other developers to embed in their applications and frameworks, and
you believe that logging information might be useful to those clients,
and you can't be sure what logging framework they're going to want to
use, then commons-logging might be useful to you.
>>

So probably you could justify its use (if you see some other logger
frameworks else than log4j).

Regards,

Jos


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:40:49 +0100, Stefan Guggisberg
<stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:02:32 +0100, Ugo Cei <ugo@apache.org> wrote:
> > Il giorno 16/feb/05, alle 12:23, Jukka Zitting ha scritto:
> >
> > > Anyhow, I'd vote for applying the patch as I see no design or
> > > implementation problems with it.
> >
> > I have but one question: Why?
> >
> > Why commons-logging, I mean, with all the problems with classloading
> > and such [1,2] it has? Isn't log4j good enough?
> 
> i put commons-logging on the ToDo list because i thought allowing
> the user to choose the logging api woud be a good idea.  jackrabbit
> doesn't use any of the advanced features of log4j, the port would
> be straight forward (as manoj's patch proved)
> 
> but if the majority shares your concerns or if nobody is in strong
> favor of commons-logging i'd be happy to drop that todo item.
> 
> btw: what other apache projects are using commons-logging?
> 
> cheers
> stefan
> 
> >
> >         Ugo
> >
> > [1] http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp
> > [2] http://www.qos.ch/logging/classloader.jsp
> >
> > --
> > Ugo Cei - http://agylen.com/blojsom/blog/
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message