Sure, but that's kinda my point - many webapps, ours (Atlassian) in particular, cannot assume a specific application server. Our apps must be able to be dropped into any app server, with any other webapps, and still be expected to play nicely. Even inserting a root logger that filters for packages don't help, as another app could be using the same library. Again, all other serious logging libraries support this, what I would label, basic feature. Even commons logging, with all its flaws, allows us to reimplement their API's (in an OSGi environment) to handle the logging, but since JUL is a java.* package, we're stuck.
Don On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Emmanuel Bourg<ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Don Brown a écrit : >> >> I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but isn't there one huge disadvantage of >> JUL - lack of per-webapp configuration? How would one webapp decide to >> redirect JUL to a file without affecting any other webapp in the same JVM? >> If this is indeed the case, JUL is a showstopper for any webapp that can't >> assume they are the only webapp in the JVM, which is just about everyone. > > Tomcat supports per webapp JUL configuration. I don't know for the other > servers. > > http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/logging.html > > Emmanuel Bourg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
