You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> on 2009/06/09 20:32:56 UTC
[VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
commons-logging to slf4j).
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
------------------------------------------------
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>.
+1
Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which
> are currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Curtiss Howard<cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gerhard
> Petracek<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> short description:
>> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
>> java.util.logging (jul).
>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
>> currently using commons-logging.
>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>
>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>
> +1
>
>
> Curtiss Howard
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Curtiss Howard <cu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gerhard
Petracek<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
+1
Curtiss Howard
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>.
+1 for JUL.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>wrote:
> -0.5, I like slf4j :)
> Regards,
>
> Cagatay
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>
>
>
--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
Web blog: http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog
[Web 2.0] Google Maps Integration with JSF:
http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/
http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=IntroductiontoGMaps4JSF
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
-0.5, I like slf4j :)
Regards,
Cagatay
On Jun 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which
> are currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch
> from commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as
> replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
+0.5
I like SLF4J as well, but I won't get in the way of JUL.
Never used JUL myself, so I don't know for sure if there might be any
hidden quirks. ;-)
--Manfred
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 20:32, Gerhard
Petracek<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
AW: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
+1
Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 09. Juni 2009 20:33
An: MyFaces Development
Betreff: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from commons-logging to slf4j).
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
------------------------------------------------
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
+0.75
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Gerhard
Petracek<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Hazem, +1 for Gerhards suggestion.
/Jan-Kees
2009/7/8 Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>:
> +1 for Gerhard new suggestion.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe we should stop the voting process
>>
>> +1 (due to several reasons)
>>
>> new suggestion:
>> if a sub-project would like to switch to jul, we don't need a vote (since
>> there is no new dependency).
>> if a sub-project would like to switch e.g. to slf4j, we have to vote (due
>> to the new logging-framework dependency).
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> http://www.irian.at
>>
>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>> Courses in English and German
>>
>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/15 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
>>>> Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the
>>>> user.
>>>> But maybe I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>> Maybe we should stop the voting process for now until we have done
>>> further research on the implications.
>>>
>>> My personal preferrence would be simply to get rid of another pesky
>>> dependency instead of just switching dependencies hence I voted +1 for JUL!
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
>
> Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
> http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
>
> Web blog: http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog
>
> [Web 2.0] Google Maps Integration with JSF:
> http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/
> http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=IntroductiontoGMaps4JSF
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>.
+1 for Gerhard new suggestion.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe we should stop the voting process
>
> +1 (due to several reasons)
>
> new suggestion:
> if a sub-project would like to switch to jul, we don't need a vote (since
> there is no new dependency).
> if a sub-project would like to switch e.g. to slf4j, we have to vote (due
> to the new logging-framework dependency).
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2009/6/15 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
>>> Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the
>>> user.
>>> But maybe I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>> Maybe we should stop the voting process for now until we have done
>> further research on the implications.
>>
>> My personal preferrence would be simply to get rid of another pesky
>> dependency instead of just switching dependencies hence I voted +1 for JUL!
>>
>>
>
--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
Web blog: http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog
[Web 2.0] Google Maps Integration with JSF:
http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/
http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=IntroductiontoGMaps4JSF
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
> Maybe we should stop the voting process
+1 (due to several reasons)
new suggestion:
if a sub-project would like to switch to jul, we don't need a vote (since
there is no new dependency).
if a sub-project would like to switch e.g. to slf4j, we have to vote (due to
the new logging-framework dependency).
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2009/6/15 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
>> Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the
>> user.
>> But maybe I'm wrong.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>> Maybe we should stop the voting process for now until we have done
> further research on the implications.
>
> My personal preferrence would be simply to get rid of another pesky
> dependency instead of just switching dependencies hence I voted +1 for JUL!
>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
> Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the user.
> But maybe I'm wrong.
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
Maybe we should stop the voting process for now until we have done
further research on the implications.
My personal preferrence would be simply to get rid of another pesky
dependency instead of just switching dependencies hence I voted +1 for JUL!
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the user.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Regards
Bernd
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ganesh<ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this an invalid veto?
>
>>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied
>>> by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security
>>> exposure, negatively affects performance, /etc./). A veto without a
>>> justification is invalid and has no weight. <<
>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto)
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>
>> +1 away from commons logging
>> -1 force to use jul
>>
>> I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons
>> logging.
>>
>> And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has
>> jul a similar feature?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew
>> Robinson<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> +0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
>>> commons logging as it has too many issues.
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<we...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>>>>> that).
>>>>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I
>>>>> think
>>>>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this
>>>> regard.
>>>> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if
>>>> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a
>>>> single line of code has to be changed.
>>>> Just my 2c!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ganesh<ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this an invalid veto?
maybe. not sure if pushing this is healthy for the community too.
If he wants to not use jul, it is OK w/ me...
>
>>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied
>>> by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security
>>> exposure, negatively affects performance, /etc./). A veto without a
>>> justification is invalid and has no weight. <<
>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto)
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>
>> +1 away from commons logging
>> -1 force to use jul
>>
>> I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons
>> logging.
>>
>> And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has
>> jul a similar feature?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew
>> Robinson<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> +0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
>>> commons logging as it has too many issues.
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<we...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>>>>> that).
>>>>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I
>>>>> think
>>>>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this
>>>> regard.
>>>> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if
>>>> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a
>>>> single line of code has to be changed.
>>>> Just my 2c!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
Hi,
Is this an invalid veto?
>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be
accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad
(opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, /etc./). A
veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. <<
(http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto)
Best regards,
Ganesh
Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
> +1 away from commons logging
> -1 force to use jul
>
> I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons logging.
>
> And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has
> jul a similar feature?
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew
> Robinson<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
>> commons logging as it has too many issues.
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>>>> that).
>>>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
>>>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this regard.
>>> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if
>>> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a
>>> single line of code has to be changed.
>>> Just my 2c!
>>>
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
+1 away from commons logging
-1 force to use jul
I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons logging.
And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has
jul a similar feature?
Regards
Bernd
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew
Robinson<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
> commons logging as it has too many issues.
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>>> that).
>>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
>>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>>
>> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this regard.
>> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if
>> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a
>> single line of code has to be changed.
>> Just my 2c!
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
+0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
commons logging as it has too many issues.
-Andrew
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz<we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>
>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>> that).
>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>
> I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this regard.
> The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another dependency, if
> Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I personally thing not a
> single line of code has to be changed.
> Just my 2c!
>
>
> Werner
>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>
I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this
regard. The biggest reason for using jul was get rid of another
dependency, if Trinidad has anothe meta logger on top of JUL I
personally thing not a single line of code has to be changed.
Just my 2c!
Werner
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Quick googling reveals that WAS does at least since 6.0,
http://www.webagesolutions.com/knowledgebase/waskb/waskb026/index.html
Weblogic also:
http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs81/javadocs/weblogic/logging/WLLevel.html
not sure about the others like jetty though, but you can use sl4j
adapters in the worst case in those servers, to rerout jul, am i right?
Werner
Volker Weber schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> in the thread "slf4j and myfaces" was a possible Problem mentioned:
>
>>> What I'm not sure is
>>> if the "JUL to other logging impl bridge" is multiple application
>>> friendly. What happens if the JUL root handler is replaced (thats what
>>> these bridges seem to do). Does this influence the servlet container
>>> logging and other apps as well?
>> Seems to be true, JUL is not container friendly by default. But this needs to be addressed by the container (and the Java Spec guys ;-) ).
>> It seems, this is the reason for JULI, the Tomcat logging impl.
>> Also JBoss solved that (as they use Tomcat ?!). See for a documentation here:
>>
>> http://www.jboss.org/file-access/default/members/jbossweb/freezone/docs/latest/logging.html
>>
>> They replace the LogManager by a container friendly LogManager. The JUL using app does not need to know that.
>
> what about the other containers (WebSphere, WebLogic, ...)?
>
> For tobago this can be an option only if all relevant containers do
> something to support this.
>
> (sorry, to busy to research this myself)
>
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> 2009/6/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>>>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
>> ok, that answers my question.
>>
>>>> currently using commons-logging.
>>>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>>>
>>>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>>>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [X] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
>> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
>> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>>
>> For core I am totally fine in using JUL, but for some reasons I don't like
>> the corporate-ish voting style to force all the other sub-projects.
>> (read: if tobago want's to use slf4j, why not ?)
>>
>> I think I will keep my +0.75 vote :-)
>> But I am also for a more liberal debate, if some project (-> Tobago)
>> want to use slf4j...
>>
>> Just my 2cents...
>>
>> -M
>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
in the thread "slf4j and myfaces" was a possible Problem mentioned:
>> What I'm not sure is
>> if the "JUL to other logging impl bridge" is multiple application
>> friendly. What happens if the JUL root handler is replaced (thats what
>> these bridges seem to do). Does this influence the servlet container
>> logging and other apps as well?
>
>Seems to be true, JUL is not container friendly by default. But this needs to be addressed by the container (and the Java Spec guys ;-) ).
>It seems, this is the reason for JULI, the Tomcat logging impl.
>Also JBoss solved that (as they use Tomcat ?!). See for a documentation here:
>
>http://www.jboss.org/file-access/default/members/jbossweb/freezone/docs/latest/logging.html
>
>They replace the LogManager by a container friendly LogManager. The JUL using app does not need to know that.
what about the other containers (WebSphere, WebLogic, ...)?
For tobago this can be an option only if all relevant containers do
something to support this.
(sorry, to busy to research this myself)
Regards,
Volker
2009/6/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
>
> ok, that answers my question.
>
>>> currently using commons-logging.
>>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>>
>>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [X] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>
> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
> The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
> we are fine with that, at least I hope...
>
> For core I am totally fine in using JUL, but for some reasons I don't like
> the corporate-ish voting style to force all the other sub-projects.
> (read: if tobago want's to use slf4j, why not ?)
>
> I think I will keep my +0.75 vote :-)
> But I am also for a more liberal debate, if some project (-> Tobago)
> want to use slf4j...
>
> Just my 2cents...
>
> -M
>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
--
inexso - information exchange solutions GmbH
Bismarckstraße 13 | 26122 Oldenburg
Tel.: +49 441 4082 356 |
FAX: +49 441 4082 355 | www.inexso.de
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
ok, that answers my question.
>> currently using commons-logging.
>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>
>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>> [ ] +0
>> [X] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>> ------------------------------------------------
For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
we are fine with that, at least I hope...
For core I am totally fine in using JUL, but for some reasons I don't like
the corporate-ish voting style to force all the other sub-projects.
(read: if tobago want's to use slf4j, why not ?)
I think I will keep my +0.75 vote :-)
But I am also for a more liberal debate, if some project (-> Tobago)
want to use slf4j...
Just my 2cents...
-M
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
I think I have a question...
Is this to *force* all the subprojects to use jul ???
If so, I'll change my vote to -1
Also, I know that Tobago has a JIRA issue to use slf4j. What's
wrong with them using that ?
I am not sure on this vote, but if the goal is to *push* one decision
to all the subprojects, I am against it... This place is about OpenSource
and it is not like in a corporate world, where one guy (-> manager) has the
right to push one (stupid) thing and everybody has to follow...
(That's my personal take on it)
-Matthias
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Gerhard
Petracek<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry to pollute the vote with a discussion ;)
+1 for JUL
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can use slf4j as a facade for JUL though, can't you ?
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
>>
>> hi,
>>>
>>> short description:
>>> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
>>> java.util.logging (jul).
>>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
>>> currently using commons-logging.
>>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>>
>>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
>
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
You can use slf4j as a facade for JUL though, can't you ?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
>
> hi,
>>
>> short description:
>> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
>> java.util.logging (jul).
>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
>> currently using commons-logging.
>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>
>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>> commons-logging to slf4j).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
>>
>
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
+1
Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>
> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
> commons-logging to slf4j).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html