logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Harry Hartley" <hhart...@pobox.com>
Subject RE: Is Log4J Dead on the Java Platform?
Date Wed, 18 May 2005 19:49:57 GMT
Thanks sincerely Mark and Curt. Your two emails essentially say the same
thing and answer many of my questions.
> > 2)       The download seems very incomplete. There are MANY directories
> > that
> > are empty. The various examples directories are incomplete.
> I take that you are referring to the 1.2.9 release package?  I'll take a
> look as this might be a release issue.  There are lots of new directories
> in
> the current cvs head, and even though the code was is not included in the
> 1.2 release, the empty dirs probably are.  That is a simple cvs checkout
> issue.  But I can see where it is confusing, no doubt, and I will make
> sure
> it is fixed for the next upcoming release.

This is the case, and thanks. I think it would be really handy to have a
very simple Tomcat webapp logging example. I would be willing to contribute
this. Can you point me to a link that describes the submission process?

> > 3)       There are references to classes in the documentation that do
> > not exist. Specifically XMLSocketAppender.
> In the v1.2.9 release?  Can you point me at an example?

Chainsaw is a part of the Log4J 1.2.9 release. In the javadoc that describes
the different kinds of receivers Specifically XMLSocketReceiver, there is
mention of an XMLSocketAppender. I searched several times through code and
html (java) docs without success. What I found doing web searches is that
XMLSocketAppender is supported by Log4Cxx. This led to my other question
about which is the flagship and which the follower.
> > 4)       Since early this year, log4j mailing lists are essentially
> > silent.
> I'm not sure which mailing list you are referring to.  There has been
> substantial traffic on the log4j-dev list, and ongoing questions and
> traffic
> on the log4j-user list.

My mistake as Curt correctly observed, I was using eyebrowse, which
apparently according to Curt, died.

> There is a future release of log4j planned for later this year which will
> have lots of new features that have been in the works for almost 2 years
> (too long, I know).  It will be quite a jump in functionality, and will
> take
> some features and usage to a new level.

I look forward to this.

> > Java  based Chainsaw has several receivers that are not supported by
> > appenders under log4j? Again, specifically XMLSocketAppender.
> Chainsaw is currently meant to be used with log4j v1.3 as it is based on
> several of the new features in that release.

Unfortunately neither the webpage nor the "documents" state this clearly. Or
maybe I missed it. Given that Chainsaw was distributed as part of the 1.2.9
release, I assumed that it was meant to work with 1.2.9, which it does. It's
just points out some lack of functionality in the 1.2.9 release. Suffice to
say that Chainsaw and Log4J are not completely synchronized. Done! Next!

> > The 'full' manual is for a fee, is this standard practice under apache?
> > This
> > is the first time I've seen this under the apache initiative.
> Many projects in Apache have private books written about them, and
> available
> separate from the project documentation.  This is the same in this case,
> though it being listed on the website is a bit different than other
> projects.  That being said, it is not meant to be the only documentation
> for
> the project, and updating the documentation for the 1.3 release is an
> identified task for the upcoming v1.3 release.  If you are having a
> specific
> issue or question, please ask it on the log4j-user list.

No promises, but how does one contribute to the documentation?

> > I notice that tomcat itself seems to opt for a default of
> > java.util.logging
> > and support log4j as a compatibility issue. Is this accurate?
> Like many projects, Tomcat insulates itself from the specific logging
> implementation by using the Jakarta Commons Logging (JCL) api for logging
> messages (somone correct me if I am wrong here).  The JCL provides a
> "wrapper" for log4j, jdk logging, Avalon LogKit, and can be configured to
> "discover" the a logging implementation package at runtime (with issues in
> web applcation containers around class loading, but that is another
> thread).
> I thought Tomcat ships with log4j as the logging implementation as their
> default.  I am not totally familiar with this aspect of Tomcat, but I
> assume
> that you could configure it to use the jdk logging package as the
> implementation if so desired.  Best bet is to ask the Tomcat folks.

I think you essentially answered this, but just FYI and completeness. I am
referring to the following line.

"Instead, the default Tomcat configuration will use java.util.logging."


I think curt probably summed it up about right when he said that it is a
complex technical and political issue. I am willing to leave it at that.

Thanks again for your thoughtful responses,


View raw message