On 07/08/2011 09:31, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging]. > > If we really have to reconsider this stuff, then I'd propose to > > a) Use java.util.logging, because it doesn't require any additional > dependencies and is guaranteed to work anywhere. > b) Carefully document how to bridge jul to log4j, because that's > exactly what's required in almost any application container I am aware > of. (The exception being Tomcat, which uses jul anyways.) > c) If the slf4j fans insist, add similar documentation for bridging > jul to slf4j.
+1. I like this plan. As an aside, Tomcat doesn't use jul, it uses JULI which is a modified commons logging implementation hard coded to output to jul by default with an alternative Jar that is hard-coded for log4j. Why the complexity? jul is not class loader aware which is a problem as soon as web applications start declaring loggers with the same name. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
