lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: Solr Logging
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:15:59 GMT
Cool.  I'm almost done with a refactor to commons-logging.  I will  
post the patch soon.

And I totally agree on the sentiment of configuration vs. writing code  
(I had to do the same thing as you) just to handle something like  

On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Will Johnson wrote:

> (putting on flame suit)
> I'd be in favor seeing is how I spent a good bit of time 2 months ago
> writing JUL handlers and log managers to forward log messages to our  
> logging
> framework (log4j).  Pretty much any alternative (Commons, Log4j,  
> SLF4J) is
> better since all of them allow you to _configure_ your underlying
> implementation (including JUL if that's what you're into).  JUL on  
> the other
> hand ~requires you to write code to switch logging implementations  
> or even
> do basic things like rotate log files.  SLF4J seems especially slim  
> and nice
> these days but really anything is better than JUL.
> If others are really serious about it, I'd be happy to help the  
> cause.  It
> should be a fairly quick refactor and we could leave the default  
> configured
> logger as JUL via whatever framework we end up going with
> - will
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll []
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: Solr Logging
> Anyone have good tips on working w/ java.util.logging (JUL)?  For one,
> the configuration seems to be per JVM, which isn't all that useful in
> a webapp environment.
>  has some tips for Tomcat, but I am using Jetty.  Not too mention, it
> seems, that if one wants to implement their own Handler, they have to
> somehow figure out how to get it in the right classloader, since the
> JVM classloader can't seem to find it if it is packaged in a WAR.
> I know logging is sometimes a religious debate, but would others
> consider a patch that switched Solr to use log4j?  Or, commons-
> logging?  I just don't think JUL is up to snuff when it comes to
> logging.  It's a PITA to configure, is not flexible, doesn't play nice
> with other logging systems and, all in all, just seems like crappy
> design by committee where the lowest common denominator won out.
> The switch is quite painless, and the former offers a lot more
> flexibility, while the latter allows one to plugin whatever they see
> fit.  I will work up a patch so people can at least see the options.
> Cheers,
> Grant

Grant Ingersoll

Lucene Helpful Hints:

View raw message