Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 47310 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2003 03:14:28 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2003 03:14:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 6516 invoked by uid 97); 22 Feb 2003 03:16:11 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-user@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 6509 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2003 03:16:11 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2003 03:16:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 45905 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2003 03:14:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Users List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 45892 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2003 03:14:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO darksleep.com) (192.204.202.251) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2003 03:14:14 -0000 Received: by darksleep.com (Postfix, from userid 1009) id 2A3843C148; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:09:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:09:51 -0500 From: "Steven J. Owens" To: Tomcat Users List Cc: Jacob Kjome Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Logging practices Message-ID: <20030222030951.GB8278@darksleep.com> Reply-To: puff@darksleep.com References: <983512280A017A4A9FCF805FDC902A1F3A6BFF@nextnet01.nextnetwireless.com> <29181953254.20030219131652@visi.com> <1045685679.1360.20.camel@desenv1.ritterdosreis.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1045685679.1360.20.camel@desenv1.ritterdosreis.br> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: Steven J.Owens X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 05:14:39PM -0300, Felipe Schnack wrote: > What are the real advantages os log4j? Everybody says it's better, but > no one says why :-) I wrote up a brief comparison, it's at http://darksleep.com. The main answer is that just using *any* logging API is more than half the battle, and it's likely to be a lot easier to switch from one logging API to another than to switch from System.out.println() to using a logging API. The conclusion at the time I wrote that there wasn't a *huge* difference, though log4j has been around longer, and is hence likely stabler and has more and better connectors. Also note that the official logging API made no bones about not planning to do anything special to support enterprise logging needs anytime soon. Both of those may have changed since then, of course, and somebody else in this thread mentioned that log4j supports the JDK logging API, which is even cooler. At the time I wrote the above comparison (a year or more ago) the logging API wasn't out of beta yet, and since we weren't running the beta JDK, and since we'd have to download and install a jar file anyway, we figured we might as well download and install log4j. Steven J. Owens puff@darksleep.com "I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong, declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read. Take it all with a grain of salt." - Me at http://darksleep.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org