You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Tal Dayan <ta...@zapta.com> on 2001/08/07 08:46:38 UTC
Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Recently I saw an Avalon announcement regarding a logger kit. Is this is
related in any way to the Log4J project ? If not, what are the key
differences between the two ? And while we are on the subject, what
are the differences between these two and the Sun logging API ?
We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
which one to use.
Thanks,
Tal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Cedric Berger wrote:
>
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> > Cedric,
> >
> > Please see
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
> >
> > before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
>
> Great, thanks for posting that new (critique2) information!
> (I already read the old one)
> And thanks for getting involven in making the 1.4 API better!
>
> But this makes my point stronger: JDK 1.4 is a good API,
> and telling people to "stay away from it" (from Berin and Jon
> messages) is stupid and irresponsible.
I would advise anyone to stay away from an unreleased JDK--as
has been demonstrated here too many things are up to change.
If you coded your app against the initial JDK1.4 logging proposal,
you would have to make changes. This is not cool--but that is
the risk of using unreleased code.
My advice now, as previously is stay away from JDK 1.4 logging
until it is fully released. The API is subject to change.
BTW,
Calling people "stupid and irresponsible" when you assume you
have all the facts is pretty inflammatory. Have some respect
for some hard workers--who know more than a little bit about
what they are saying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> But this makes my point stronger: JDK 1.4 is a good API,
> and telling people to "stay away from it" (from Berin and Jon
> messages) is stupid and irresponsible.
No it is not (stupid and irresponsible). It just increases the
pressure to make it right.
Standards must deserve the approval of their users instead of
being decided by committee. Users should vote with their feet
when necessary.
Irresponsible and stupid is accepting any thing that is imposed
on us by a BigCo. or by a "standards body" without questioning
it:
- Irresponsible because that is a way of not taking
responsibility for the quality of the tools and standards
used in one's work - and hence the work itself;
- Stupid because one ends up in bigger trouble that way.
If we would all agree using whatever is pushed stronger in our
direction, we would all be using Microsoft tools.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cedric Berger [mailto:cedric@wireless-networks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:05 PM
> To: general@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
>
>
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> > Cedric,
> >
> > Please see
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
> >
> > before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
>
> Great, thanks for posting that new (critique2) information!
> (I already read the old one)
> And thanks for getting involven in making the 1.4 API better!
>
> But this makes my point stronger: JDK 1.4 is a good API,
> and telling people to "stay away from it" (from Berin and Jon
> messages) is stupid and irresponsible.
>
> Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
> I never said to stay away from the JDK 1.4 logging system.
Well, then look at the following part of your previous message,
and explain more clearly what you meant by "+1".
>on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hopefully the information presented here will help you. I would stay
>> away from JDK1.4 logging, and use either LogKit or Log4J which are of
>> equal quality--but slightly different focuses and underlying concepts.
>
>+1
> WHAT I SAID:
>
> I *personally* prefer to use the Log4J API.
Well...
> How that got translated into me being "stupid and irresponsible" is beyond
> me.
I know my english need improvement, but you should improve your
reading skills too I said:
"telling people to "stay away from it" is stupid and irresponsible"
I don't think anybody on this list is stupid. But I believe the "stay away" advice is.
Sorry is anybody understood it the wrong way.
And Jon:
I like you and use some of your works. But I also read tomcat mailing lists.
It seems to me that you're never afraid of a little bit of flaming ;)
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 8/7/01 11:04 AM, "Cedric Berger" <ce...@wireless-networks.com> wrote:
> But this makes my point stronger: JDK 1.4 is a good API,
> and telling people to "stay away from it" (from Berin and Jon
> messages) is stupid and irresponsible.
>
> Cedric
Go back and read my message.
I never said to stay away from the JDK 1.4 logging system.
WHAT I SAID:
I *personally* prefer to use the Log4J API.
How that got translated into me being "stupid and irresponsible" is beyond
me.
Lastly, the JDK 1.4 Logging API is just that. AN API!.
That means that Log4J can simply implement that API and be compliant.
If I use Log4J now, I know that in the future, my code can be easily
compliant with the JDK 1.4 Logging API by simply changing import statements
yet still use the Log4J code underneath. That is the direction that I'm
*personally* recommending people go in.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Cedric,
>
> Please see
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
>
> and
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
>
> before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
Great, thanks for posting that new (critique2) information!
(I already read the old one)
And thanks for getting involven in making the 1.4 API better!
But this makes my point stronger: JDK 1.4 is a good API,
and telling people to "stay away from it" (from Berin and Jon
messages) is stupid and irresponsible.
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <cg...@qos.ch>.
Cedric,
Please see
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
and
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html
before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Ceki
At 10:15 07.08.2001 -0700, Cedric Berger wrote:
>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Tal Dayan wrote:
>> >
>> > Recently I saw an Avalon announcement regarding a logger kit. Is this is
>> > related in any way to the Log4J project ? If not, what are the key
>> > differences between the two ? And while we are on the subject, what
>> > are the differences between these two and the Sun logging API ?
>>
>> It takes a couple
>> iterations of an API to get it right, and Sun foolishly decided to include
>> the API without the real world testing and feedback. Almost all the other
>> APIs they included with JDK 1.4 have been released first as a separate
>> project--something that would have benefitted JDK 1.4 Logging.
>>
>> That really leaves you with LogKit 1.0b4 and Log4J 1.1.3.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>The JDK 1.4 logging API has not been developped by Sun, but
>by the JCP which includes many other corporations like IBM,
>which all have experience with logging APIs.
>
>I'm not gonna argue whether the JDK 1.4 logging is better or worse than
>LogKit or Log4j. But what I'm saying is that:
>
>1) I'm happy that we finally have a standard logging API included into
>the JDK, even if it's not the best one out there.
>2) Unless the JDK 1.4 API is completely broken, it will at some point
>become the standard and I am going to use it for all my new projects.
>
>BTW: somebody has released, somewhere, the classes of the JDK 1.4
>logging api for use with prior JRK releases.
>
>Cedric
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Tal Dayan wrote:
> >
> > Recently I saw an Avalon announcement regarding a logger kit. Is this is
> > related in any way to the Log4J project ? If not, what are the key
> > differences between the two ? And while we are on the subject, what
> > are the differences between these two and the Sun logging API ?
>
> It takes a couple
> iterations of an API to get it right, and Sun foolishly decided to include
> the API without the real world testing and feedback. Almost all the other
> APIs they included with JDK 1.4 have been released first as a separate
> project--something that would have benefitted JDK 1.4 Logging.
>
> That really leaves you with LogKit 1.0b4 and Log4J 1.1.3.
Nonsense.
The JDK 1.4 logging API has not been developped by Sun, but
by the JCP which includes many other corporations like IBM,
which all have experience with logging APIs.
I'm not gonna argue whether the JDK 1.4 logging is better or worse than
LogKit or Log4j. But what I'm saying is that:
1) I'm happy that we finally have a standard logging API included into
the JDK, even if it's not the best one out there.
2) Unless the JDK 1.4 API is completely broken, it will at some point
become the standard and I am going to use it for all my new projects.
BTW: somebody has released, somewhere, the classes of the JDK 1.4
logging api for use with prior JRK releases.
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> It takes a couple
> iterations of an API to get it right, and Sun foolishly decided to include
> the API without the real world testing and feedback.
I'm sure it isn't the first time. :-)
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 8/7/01 5:47 AM, "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hopefully the information presented here will help you. I would stay
> away from JDK1.4 logging, and use either LogKit or Log4J which are of
> equal quality--but slightly different focuses and underlying concepts.
+1
Log4J also has a bit more visibility within Jakarta because it is a top
level project. Therefore, there is the *potential* that more developer
resources will be dedicated to it because people will find that project
first.
*Personally*, I like Log4J better at this point. The 25k .jar file with full
backwards compatibility to the enterprise edition also really makes a big
statement. You write your code to the 25k .jar API's and then drop in the
larger .jar when you need more features. You can't beat simple replacement
of a .jar file.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Tal Dayan wrote:
>
> Recently I saw an Avalon announcement regarding a logger kit. Is this is
> related in any way to the Log4J project ? If not, what are the key
> differences between the two ? And while we are on the subject, what
> are the differences between these two and the Sun logging API ?
Log4J, LogKit, and JDK 1.4 Logging are all different APIs. They are of
varying quality and complexity. You will find that many concepts are
shared between LogKit and Log4J. JDK1.4 Logging is considered by many
to be an experimental logging infrastructure because it has not had the
benefit of hard use in actual released software. It takes a couple
iterations of an API to get it right, and Sun foolishly decided to include
the API without the real world testing and feedback. Almost all the other
APIs they included with JDK 1.4 have been released first as a separate
project--something that would have benefitted JDK 1.4 Logging.
That really leaves you with LogKit 1.0b4 and Log4J 1.1.3. These two
logging appplications are becoming more and more similar as the days
pass (whether the authors are aware of it or not). The difference
between the two is largely the concepts they were built on. You will
find better documentation for Log4J, and probably a larger group of
people who use it. The LogKit team give special attention to server
side issues beyond simple application logging. Those server side issues
include reliability, security, and atomicity--along with performance.
This is not to insinuate that Log4J ignores those issues, but it's
primary focus on application logging rather than server logging.
> We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
> which one to use.
Hopefully the information presented here will help you. I would stay
away from JDK1.4 logging, and use either LogKit or Log4J which are of
equal quality--but slightly different focuses and underlying concepts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Cedric,
>
> If you think that j.u.l has all the features you need then you should
> use it. Have you actually looked at the contents of j.u.l?
No more than 5 minutes.
Again, I'm not trying to say that any logging package is better than
any another one, because I don't have this expertise / experience.
I was just trying to somewhat balance some strong opinions which
have showed up on this list.
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <cg...@qos.ch>.
Cedric,
If you think that j.u.l has all the features you need then you should
use it. Have you actually looked at the contents of j.u.l?
I lacks many useful features that people expect to find in a logging
package. Yes, even you will want them. Log4j might be obsolete five years
from now although that is far from certain. What is certain is that
j.u.l is obsolete today and will remain obsolete for the foreseeable
future.
If you can bind your code exclusively to JDK 1.4, then you are very
lucky. Most of us to not have that luxury. Regards, Ceki
At 15:46 07.08.2001 -0700, Cedric Berger wrote:
>Avi Cherry wrote:
>
>> >What prevent the "JavalinSoft" class from working with the JDK 1.4?
>> >And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
>> >*if you relly need to*?
>>
>> What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
>> you end up having to include a copy of it (the JavalinSoft version)
>> with every copy of your software?
>
>I don't know if I really have to respond to that. This thread will never die.
>But let me just try to tell a story:
>
>Susan want to code against the JDK 1.4, because Susan don't want to
>rewrite his application in 5 years, when most of the other logging
>packages will be considered obsolete (I feel the flames coming).
>So Susan want to code agains JDK 1.4 which is not yet really available.
>but Susan is smart, she download the JavalinSoft and code against it.
>
>2-3 years from now, when everybody is using at least JDK 1.4 (more
>flames coming) Susan type "perl -e s/com.javelin.logging/java.util.loging/g"
>and "rm javelin.jar" et voila, she has an up-to-date application!
>
>I know there may be many reasons to chose, for example, Log4J,
>no need to start another thread.
>But there *is* also *many* good reasons to code against the JDK 1.4
>API right now.
>
>I also know I'm in ennemy territory here.
>
>Cedric
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
> > FACT: Jog4J supports JDK 1.1.x and higher,
> > while JogKit only supports JDK 1.2+, and JDK 1.4 logging is only
> _officialy_
> > available in JDK 1.4.
>
> Not terribly interested in Loggers, but I think I might need a JogKit.
> Actually I've got a bit of a mainframe, will Jog4J RUN :-)
>
> I think you may have typed Log too many times !
I agree! Keep in mind that Jog4J doesn't RUN, it jogs.
That was a good catch ;P
(ok, so I lied about the last post being my last).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
> FACT: Jog4J supports JDK 1.1.x and higher,
> while JogKit only supports JDK 1.2+, and JDK 1.4 logging is only
_officialy_
> available in JDK 1.4.
Not terribly interested in Loggers, but I think I might need a JogKit.
Actually I've got a bit of a mainframe, will Jog4J RUN :-)
I think you may have typed Log too many times !
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Cedric Berger wrote:
>
> Avi Cherry wrote:
>
> > >What prevent the "JavalinSoft" class from working with the JDK 1.4?
> > >And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
> > >*if you relly need to*?
> >
> > What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
> > you end up having to include a copy of it (the JavalinSoft version)
> > with every copy of your software?
>
> I don't know if I really have to respond to that. This thread will never die.
> But let me just try to tell a story:
This is my last post on the matter (which you may appreciate ;P). However,
in the real world, there are some issues with this scenario.
> Susan want to code against the JDK 1.4, because Susan don't want to
> rewrite his application in 5 years, when most of the other logging
> packages will be considered obsolete (I feel the flames coming).
> So Susan want to code agains JDK 1.4 which is not yet really available.
> but Susan is smart, she download the JavalinSoft and code against it.
Susan is choosing to code against an experimental API that is subject to
change. It has never been released yet. There are inherent risks in that
approach, and she will have some rework later on. Period. Susan then
chooses to ignore defacto standards for Java Logging and use JavalinSoft's
code--knowing full well that this will require rework anyway. Susan also
accepts the risk that JavalinSoft will become out of sync with the final
released JDK 1.4 logging package.
Susan is assuming a much _larger_ amount of risk than using well tested
veteran logging packages already available. Susan is also assuming the
risk that these current defacto standard logging packages will simply die
when JDK 1.4 is released. FACT: some places are still using JDK 1.1.7
(just look at the Oracle tools). FACT: Jog4J supports JDK 1.1.x and higher,
while JogKit only supports JDK 1.2+, and JDK 1.4 logging is only _officialy_
available in JDK 1.4.
Susan will have much explaining to do to her IT manager for all the risk
that she is exposing to herself and to her company. It will be much easier
for her to convince her IT management staff to use Log4J or LogKit than
for her to convince them to use JDK 1.4 logging--even after it is first
introduced. Most responsible IT management will thoroughly test new JVMs
for potential security risks and compatibility with existing applications.
JDK 1.4 won't be installed until the existing applications work with it.
Now, if Susan is only working on an Open Source Project, and the users are
also willing to assume the risk then there is little to be said. Of course,
she may have to answer questions on why she chose a closed source logging
package instead of an open source one.
> 2-3 years from now, when everybody is using at least JDK 1.4 (more
> flames coming) Susan type "perl -e s/com.javelin.logging/java.util.loging/g"
> and "rm javelin.jar" et voila, she has an up-to-date application!
Read the above paragraph to find why that is hogwash. The final released API
in JDK 1.4 is not guaranteed to be the same API as is currently released or
that the Javelin package does not introduce certain peculiarities that are
not present in the final released version.
> I know there may be many reasons to chose, for example, Log4J,
> no need to start another thread.
> But there *is* also *many* good reasons to code against the JDK 1.4
> API right now.
You make alot of assumptions. There are *more* good reasons *not* to
code against JDK 1.4 API right now.
> I also know I'm in ennemy territory here.
;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Avi Cherry wrote:
> >What prevent the "JavalinSoft" class from working with the JDK 1.4?
> >And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
> >*if you relly need to*?
>
> What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
> you end up having to include a copy of it (the JavalinSoft version)
> with every copy of your software?
I don't know if I really have to respond to that. This thread will never die.
But let me just try to tell a story:
Susan want to code against the JDK 1.4, because Susan don't want to
rewrite his application in 5 years, when most of the other logging
packages will be considered obsolete (I feel the flames coming).
So Susan want to code agains JDK 1.4 which is not yet really available.
but Susan is smart, she download the JavalinSoft and code against it.
2-3 years from now, when everybody is using at least JDK 1.4 (more
flames coming) Susan type "perl -e s/com.javelin.logging/java.util.loging/g"
and "rm javelin.jar" et voila, she has an up-to-date application!
I know there may be many reasons to chose, for example, Log4J,
no need to start another thread.
But there *is* also *many* good reasons to code against the JDK 1.4
API right now.
I also know I'm in ennemy territory here.
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Avi Cherry <al...@insomniaque.net>.
>What prevent the "JavalinSoft" class from working with the JDK 1.4?
>And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
>*if you relly need to*?
What's the benefit in settling on the 'standard' logging package if
you end up having to include a copy of it (the JavalinSoft version)
with every copy of your software? That is, unless it's a superior
package to other freely useable/distributable packages, which seems
to be in doubt at the moment. I'm sure there are somewhat more messy
ways of making this work than I can think of, but the point seems to
be that one shouldn't have to.
Avi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Avi Cherry wrote:
> > > Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
> >> statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
> >
> >Yes, you're right.
> >This is not a perfect solution.
> >
> >But since the java.awt.swing -> com.sun.awt.swing -> javax.swing
> >horror story, some tools are pretty good at automating that kind of change.
>
> More importantly, it breaks binary compatibility. You would not be
> able to release a single binary that worked with the JavalinSoft
> version under JDK 1.3.1 and the Sun version in JDK 1.4.
And why not, could you tell us?
What prevent the "JavalinSoft" class from working with the JDK 1.4?
And what prevent you from conditionally bridging the two package,
*if you relly need to*?
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Avi Cherry <al...@insomniaque.net>.
> > Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
>> statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
>
>Yes, you're right.
>This is not a perfect solution.
>
>But since the java.awt.swing -> com.sun.awt.swing -> javax.swing
>horror story, some tools are pretty good at automating that kind of change.
More importantly, it breaks binary compatibility. You would not be
able to release a single binary that worked with the JavalinSoft
version under JDK 1.3.1 and the Sun version in JDK 1.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Kurt Schrader wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 04:21 PM, Cedric Berger wrote:
>
> > Too bad this fails to recognize that you don't need to put that into
> > the java.util.* namespace.
> > For example the javelinsoft classes are under "com.javelinsoft".
>
> Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
> statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
Yes, you're right.
This is not a perfect solution.
But since the java.awt.swing -> com.sun.awt.swing -> javax.swing
horror story, some tools are pretty good at automating that kind of change.
And a small perl script is probably enough, I guess...
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Kurt Schrader <ks...@engin.umich.edu>.
On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 04:21 PM, Cedric Berger wrote:
> Too bad this fails to recognize that you don't need to put that into
> the java.util.* namespace.
> For example the javelinsoft classes are under "com.javelinsoft".
Yes, but this leads to you having to change all of your import
statements if you switch from JDK 1.4 to 1.3 or earlier.
-Kurt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Cedric Berger wrote:
> >
> > Tal Dayan wrote:
> >
> > > We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
> > > which one to use.
> >
> > If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
> > http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
>
> Too bad I can't use it with JDK 1.3 (check Ceki's new critique regarding
> that issue). I wonder how long this exists before Sun sends a "cease and
> desist" letter...
Ceki new critique says:
> Efforts to backport JSR47 to earlier JDKs are doomed to fail because the java.util.logging package is located under the java namespace.
> This will cause backported code to systematically throw a SecurityException under JDK 1.3. Moreover, Java is a trademark owned by Sun
> Microsystems. As such, the backported code will be under the threat of litigation as long as Sun can be expected to defend its trademark.
Too bad this fails to recognize that you don't need to put that into the java.util.* namespace.
For example the javelinsoft classes are under "com.javelinsoft".
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Cedric Berger wrote:
>
> Tal Dayan wrote:
>
> > We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
> > which one to use.
>
> If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
> http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
Too bad I can't use it with JDK 1.3 (check Ceki's new critique regarding
that issue). I wonder how long this exists before Sun sends a "cease and
desist" letter...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Loggers, loggers, all over the place
Posted by Cedric Berger <ce...@wireless-networks.com>.
Tal Dayan wrote:
> We plan to add a logger to one of our products and we are not sure
> which one to use.
If you want to try the JDK 1.4 logging for older JDK:
http://www.javelinsoft.com/jlogger/
Cedric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org