tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33143] - [PATCH] Java 1.4 loggers per context
Date Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:05:27 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33143>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33143





------- Additional Comments From hoju@visi.com  2005-02-06 14:05 -------
Remy,

First, I didn't ask for a vote.  Second, your comments are *always* "Strong", so
you can skip the redundancy and just comment.  Third, the core of my comment was
about using a Log4j repository selector which specifically addresses the
comments about separating logging per application in the presence of a VM wide
logging implementation.  UGLI was an aside that maybe could have been left out,
but I thought I'd mention it.  Sorry to ruffle your feathers!

But since you seem to have focused on the non-core part of the comment, I'll
bite.  What do you suggest then?  Continue using the commons-logging?  IMO,
that's not a solution and I'm not alone in this thought (one example of many
below)...

Commons Logging was my fault
http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/2003/08/15.html


UGLI provides for a common logging API, avoids the brittleness of
commons-logging discovery, allows for a tiny jar to be compiled against and/or
distributed with any given project, and allows one to use any logging
implementation at runtime including Log4j, JDK1.4 logging, System.out and NOP. 
More can be added.

Does your objection merely have to do with a personality conflict with Ceki and,
by proxy, myself?  Any problems with Yoav who, to my knowledge, hasn't voiced
objections to UGLI and is a Log4j developer (sorry Yoav, I don't mean to bring
you into this, just pointing out a possible inconsistency here)?  If not, I find
your motivations suspect.

If I'm just way off on the above, is it that the UGLI API is not javax.ugli, but
org.apache.ugli?  Any constructive thoughts on making UGLI or some other concept
more of a community process?  You mention the "interoperability route".  Exactly
what you do mean here?  What's not "interoperable" about UGLI?  If you think I'm
clueless, how about giving me a clue and be constructive yourself "which would
be beneficial to everyone involved".


Jake


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message