On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ceki Gulcu a écrit : > > There is also the overhead of converting each jul event to log4j >> within the bridge. This overhead can be quite significant. In a >> production system, you also have to synchronize the level of jul >> logging with that of log4j. It's feasible but just more additional >> work. >> > > The overhead is acceptable for the limited logging requirements of Commons > Configuration. 1. You have determined this how? 2. Commons Configuration needs more logging added. I have had difficulty identifying problems because not enough logging is being done. I will be adding this. > > > > Have you already tested an application with Paul's bridge in production? >> > > No, JUL is good enough for my needs. But not for mine. I do plan on reverting configuration2 back to commons logging when I get some time. I'd prefer SLF4J but this list has indicated that commons logging is the preferred logging framework to use for commons projects. Ralph
