myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:20:15 GMT
There's definitely value limiting dependencies.   But there's also the
reality that even though MyFaces code doesn't directly use JCL, its
dependencies do, so you have to have it anyway.

The SL4J library can emulate the JCL interface, so here's a way to
support SL4J without adding a dependency for it, if a dependency is
the real concern.   I have to have that emulation jar in my classpath
in any case for the other JCL producers.

Using logback isn't an option for me.   I've read the docs, and it
seems like LevelChangePropagator would do what was advertised.  I
doubt the claim would be made if it were not true.

I'm surprised no other JSF 2 users have commented on how they handle
the JUL logging dependency.

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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