> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2017-09-05 15:33 GMT+02:00 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>: >> >> I see your point. I guess we never built a bridge from the Log4j 2 API to >> JUL simply because we couldn’t imagine anyone would want to use it :-) As I >> said, by choosing jul you have gone with the worst option. You would have >> been better off creating your own API. >> >> I think you will see in my original email I said that containers are a >> special case - either they should hide all the third party dependencies >> they use or they should use their own logging abstraction. It sounds like >> TomEE doesn’t do either of these. >> > > It is more complicated, tomee does for the code it owns, as well as cxf, > owb, .... but the most consistent API is JUL for all of them (most of them > even just subclass JUL to allow extension). It looks doable to be fast with > JUL since you can override Logger completely so I'm tempted to say that in > term of API not that impacting until you use very advanced signature (which > is not the case of container stacks in general). > > >> >> If you need an adapter from the Log4j 2 API to a TomEE implementation just >> create a Jira issue at Log4j 2. I am sure we would be happy to provide it. >> > > I think it must go the other way: log4j2 must push projects to move > otherwise projects will be happy with X -> log4j2 bridges, no?
We already have support for bridging other APIs to Log4j 2. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
