You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Max Rydahl Andersen <ma...@jboss.com> on 2005/06/09 12:07:46 UTC
looking at UGLI
Hi guys,
I like the UGLI approach - simple and efficient.
But one thing bothers me - why don't you have Logger.log(lvl, msg, ...) in
there to
support custom levels which all the ugli implementors support ?
/max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: looking at UGLI
Posted by Max Rydahl Andersen <ma...@jboss.com>.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:52:19 +0200, Jacob Kjome <ho...@visi.com> wrote:
> Quoting Max Rydahl Andersen <ma...@jboss.com>:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I like the UGLI approach - simple and efficient.
>>
>
> You do realize that UGLI has been dropped in favor or SLF4J, right?
> http://slf4j.org/
Did not know that since the log4j homepage does not state that fact ,)
And besides slf4j has the exact same "issue"...but i'll go there instead.
thank you,
Max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: looking at UGLI
Posted by Jacob Kjome <ho...@visi.com>.
Quoting Max Rydahl Andersen <ma...@jboss.com>:
> Hi guys,
>
> I like the UGLI approach - simple and efficient.
>
You do realize that UGLI has been dropped in favor or SLF4J, right?
http://slf4j.org/
It's really the same concept with a different name, and under a license that is
compatible with both Apache and GPL/LGPL licenses. There has also been further
development as well. I suggest you check that out as the next non-1.2.x version
of Log4j will work with slf4j, not UGLI.
> But one thing bothers me - why don't you have Logger.log(lvl, msg, ...) in
> there to
> support custom levels which all the ugli implementors support ?
>
I suggest you sign up on the slf4j email list and make your suggestion there.
The Log4j project does not steer development of slf4j (although some slf4j
developers may happen to Log4j developers... as well as commons-logging
developers).
As to the response by Alexey where he said...
> Btw, there is no need to introduce another API - the same efficient
> solution with a direct implementation of another interface can be done
> for commons-logging API also.
This may be the case (I'll have to trust you on this one), but it isn't a common
usage pattern of commons-logging. The normal usage pattern is for
commons-logging to be a wrapper and use discovery to find the logging
implementation. As Ceki has shown ( http://www.qos.ch/logging/classloader.jsp
), this discovery mechanism is only reliable when the logging implementation is
"located at the same level or higher in the class loader tree", so "in practical
terms, the only logging API safely bridged by JCL is the java.util.logging API".
Ceki's article contrasts UGLI with commons-logging. Of course, as I've said,
UGLI has been replaced by slf4j, so you can just replace any mention of UGLI
with slf4j.
Jake
> /max
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: looking at UGLI
Posted by Max Rydahl Andersen <ma...@jboss.com>.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:07:56 +0200, Alexey Panchenko
<al...@olmisoft.com> wrote:
> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> MRA> I like the UGLI approach - simple and efficient.
>
> Btw, there is no need to introduce another API - the same efficient
> solution with a direct implementation of another interface can be done
> for commons-logging API also.
Ok. where is it ?
-max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: looking at UGLI
Posted by Alexey Panchenko <al...@olmisoft.com>.
Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
MRA> I like the UGLI approach - simple and efficient.
Btw, there is no need to introduce another API - the same efficient
solution with a direct implementation of another interface can be done
for commons-logging API also.
--
Best regards,
Alexey mailto:alex+news@olmisoft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org