On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Valid points. The main issue I have with Commons Logging is just
that it is
too minimal. But that can easily be addressed. But I do have a
couple of
comments.
I always thought people were complaining it does too much ;-)
Trying hard not to get dragged into logging discussions anymore - but
I am curious: What are you missing?
Commons Logging's Log method has very few methods - 2 variations for
each of the 6 log levels and then the "is" methods.
By contrast, SLF4J supports many more variations of these, primarily
because it supports Markers (which I will refer to in a moment). In
addition, SLF4J supports a message syntax that in many cases
eliminates the need to wrap all the logging calls with if
(logger.isXXXEnabled()).
Next, SLF4J supports the MDC - regardless of whether the
implementation comes from Log4j or Logback. My applications all rely
on this.
The we get to the SLF4J extensions (where I have commit rights).
XLogger provides some of the APIs that are available in JUL. It uses
Markers to make it easy to filter them. It also provides an
MDCStrLookup that allows the MDC to be accessible in any application
that uses Commons Lang's StrLookup support - which Commons
Configuration does.
SLF4J also comes with a few utilities such as a profiler and a
StopWatch class.
Does that help?
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
