On 2013-01-15 09:56, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>>> >>>>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see >>>>> use for old and older applications. >>>>> That said, I just checked and saw tomcat is still using commons-logging: >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/build.xml >>>>> >>>>> Maybe Mark will comment here. >>>> >>>> Tomcat 6 (min JDK 5) will certainly stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x >>>> Tomcat 7 (min JDK 6) will probably stick with Commons Logging 1.1.x >>>> Tomcat 8 (min JDK 7) will - at the moment - look to upgrade to whatever >>>> the latest version is. >>> >>> Just out of interest... why the love with Commons Logging and not for >>> example slf4j? >> >> It was the best choice at the time and no-one has made a good argument >> for changing. >> >> Tomcat used C-L to create JULI which is package renamed (to avoid >> conflicts if a webapp uses C-L), hard coded to use java.util.logging and >> has a custom LogManager that actually works properly in a >> multi-classloader container environment - don't get me started on how >> bad the default one is. >> >> There is an optional package that adds back in the (still package >> renamed) full version of commons logging and provides an adaptor for log4j. >> >> So Tomcat's requirements are: >> - easy to package rename (technically and legally) >> - pluggable for multiple back-ends >> - won't clash with anything a webapp does >> >> Commons Logging meets all of those requirements. Other logging >> frameworks may also meet them but they'd have to offer an awful lot more >> to justify the work that would be required to refactor JULI to use them. >> It isn't as if there are any features missing in C-L that Tomcat >> needs/wants. > > Thanks for the insight. > > Maybe it would be interesting to change the targets of commons-logging. > > Currently it is in direct competition with slf4j (logging facade which > connects to different other frameworks). And as that its pretty > outdated and just of use for a few. > > But what if commons-logging would have the target to be minimal, easy > to repackage and maybe does even provide a basic logging > implementation.
It already includes a basic logging implementation: SimpleLog. > The other frameworks come up with a lot of features which often comes > with a lot of complexity and sometimes a cost in performance. > commons-logging could solve this. > > Christian > > > >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
