myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:10 GMT
There still may be some value in not introducing dependencies in the
case of projects that implement Java EE specifications.  Has anyone
verified whether
http://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html#LevelChangePropagator
improves JUL performance as advertised?

Matt

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, things change with time & may be it didn't mattered too much that time
> but today SL4J is the need as it is widely adopted now.
>
> So +1 for SL4J !
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do
>> everything SL4J claimed to do.   But as I stated earlier, the
>> theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real
>> use conditions.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really
>> > understand the need.
>> >
>> > Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that
>> > reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense.   SL4J was new, and
>> > I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it.
>> >
>> > If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using
>> > SL4J as the logging mechanism.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired
>> logging
>> >> SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons
>> logging or
>> >> otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?!
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Did you ever say something you really regretted?
>> >>>
>> >>> I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the
>> >>> logging vote two years back[1].
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]
>> >>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1f27@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during
>> >>> development, and incurring the performance hits.
>> >>>
>> >>> Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for
>> >>> production.
>> >>>
>> >>> How are other people handling this?  I know at the time of the
>> >>> discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or
>> >>> JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the
>> >>> theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality
>> >>> of using it?
>> >>>
>> >>> slf4j and myfaces
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5101@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae683@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3Cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d0574fd@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
>> >>>
>>

Mime
View raw message