RE: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box) Component" Reuse?

[Ceki Gülcü <cg...@urbanet.ch>]

Mark,

At 17:18 23.01.2001 +0100, you wrote:
>John,
>
>This seems to me like a valid question (1).  Obviously, I myself tend more
>towards the black-box end of the spectrum.  While I think having the source
>code is great, and often needed, what I really want to do is just *use* the
>thing, out of the box.  My worry about modifying/extending the source code
>has two reasons: 1) I'm a lousy programmer, so the lousy hacks I wind up
>making to get the thing working the way I need it to are unlikely to be
>accepted for inclusion in the "real" source, and 2) that means that each new
>version is likely to break my app, and involve extra effort on my part to
>get it working again.  Perhaps, in the worst case, so much extra effort,
>that I would have been better off writing my own, lousy, but just-right for
>my needs, package, and not using the open source product at all, despite its
>higher quality overall.

When you use an external library you are basically saying I need its 
functionality and can live with the its shortcomings (if any).  It is hard 
to resist the temptation to re-invent the wheel. It really is! :-)  The 
temptation tends to be inversely proportional to the size of the wheel. Few 
people would be tempted to rewrite an XML parser or a web server. It would 
be very interesting but you are unlikely to re-write a better parser. It is 
very easy to write a simple logging library. Most developers can probably 
write one in a few days. However, I doubt if such an effort would be cost 
effective.

>All of which leads me to make the observation; if Open Source projects are
>to become the normal paradigm in the future, then they need to be useful to
>lousy programmers, and not just those programmers who are good enough to
>improve or expand on the package.  That may sound a strange, and I've said
>such things before, in other contexts, only to get flamed about "pandering
>to the lowest common denominator."  So let me add, in attempt to fend some
>of that off proactively, that I *am* the lowest common denominator, so I
>naturally have a lot of sympathy for that viewpoint!  :-)
>
>(1) But it would, wouldn't it?  :-)

What are you talking about? I don't believe for a second that you are a 
lousy programmer. If you are saying that open source projects should cater 
for newbies then I agree completely. Not  even seasoned developers should 
need to look under the hood.  I mean it's a logging package after all.

Having said that, it must be acknowledged that any tool takes time to 
learn. Log4j is no exception. I've been using CVS for about 5 years and I 
still need to refer to the manual from time to time. Does that mean that I 
should rewrite CVS? I have learned to live with the limits of that specific 
tool.

Coming back to the DOMConfigurator, I admit that the current 
re-configuration behavior is somewhat odd. However, this will be fixed in a 
future release. That's the advantage of using a regularly maintained 
library: wrinkles do get fixed. It just takes some time. Cheers, Ceki


----
Ceki Gülcü (cgu@urbanet.ch)

Re: Newbie question

[Ceki Gülcü <cg...@urbanet.ch>]

At 11:15 23.01.2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I've just started to look at log4j, and have a couple of questions:
>
>1. Is is possible to have different appenders that gets invoked for
>different priorities only?
>For example, I set the priority for the category to be INFO. Then, if for
>INFO logging I would like to log to a specific appender only, and for ERROR
>logging I would like to log to another appender only.

Roger,

See the Threshold option in AppenderSkeleton. BTW, this is already FAQ item.

>2. How would I enable the logging to a JMS topic? I assume I have to
>implement the Appender interface?

Log4j comes with a JMSAppender already.

>Thank you for contributing with such a cool tool!!

Thank you for thanking, :-) Ceki

----
Ceki Gülcü (cgu@urbanet.ch)

Re: JDBCAppender

[Kevin Steppe <ks...@pacbell.net>]

I'll try to get it out by the end of this week.  I need to test it a little bit
more.

Kevin


Liu Xiao Hua wrote:

> Kevin:
>
> I am also very interested in the JDBCAppender, Where can I get it?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Liu Xiaohua
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Steppe [mailto:ksteppe@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:34 AM
> To: LOG4J Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box)
> Component"Reuse?
>
> Personally I try to use packages as reused components as much as possible.
> Open
> Source projects tend to lack the extensive documentation generated by a
> commercial projects documentation team so I find I often need to 'look under
> the
> hood' to understand how things should get used.  For extensions polymorphism
> is
> definately the way to go and having the source makes it -so- much easier to
> know
> how to write a subclass.  Speaking of extensions, I have just written a
> JDBCAppender for my employer.  If people are interested I could easily
> replace
> the employer specific database stuff with standard JDBC and contribute it.
>
> Kevin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

RE: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box) Component"Reuse?

[Liu Xiao Hua <xi...@gridnode.com>]

Kevin:

I am also very interested in the JDBCAppender, Where can I get it?

Thanks a lot!

Liu Xiaohua

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Steppe [mailto:ksteppe@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:34 AM
To: LOG4J Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box)
Component"Reuse?


Personally I try to use packages as reused components as much as possible.
Open
Source projects tend to lack the extensive documentation generated by a
commercial projects documentation team so I find I often need to 'look under
the
hood' to understand how things should get used.  For extensions polymorphism
is
definately the way to go and having the source makes it -so- much easier to
know
how to write a subclass.  Speaking of extensions, I have just written a
JDBCAppender for my employer.  If people are interested I could easily
replace
the employer specific database stuff with standard JDBC and contribute it.

Kevin



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

Newbie question

[Roger Kjensrud <ro...@cj.com>]

Hello,

I've just started to look at log4j, and have a couple of questions:

1. Is is possible to have different appenders that gets invoked for
different priorities only?
For example, I set the priority for the category to be INFO. Then, if for
INFO logging I would like to log to a specific appender only, and for ERROR
logging I would like to log to another appender only.

2. How would I enable the logging to a JMS topic? I assume I have to
implement the Appender interface?

Thank you for contributing with such a cool tool!!

Roger Kjensrud

RE: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box) Component"Reuse?

[Roger Kjensrud <ro...@cj.com>]

Kevin,

I would be very interested in a JDBC appender....

Thanks,

Roger Kjensrud

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Steppe [mailto:ksteppe@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:34 AM
> To: LOG4J Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box)
> Component"Reuse?
>
>
> Personally I try to use packages as reused components as much as
> possible.  Open
> Source projects tend to lack the extensive documentation generated by a
> commercial projects documentation team so I find I often need to
> 'look under the
> hood' to understand how things should get used.  For extensions
> polymorphism is
> definately the way to go and having the source makes it -so- much
> easier to know
> how to write a subclass.  Speaking of extensions, I have just written a
> JDBCAppender for my employer.  If people are interested I could
> easily replace
> the employer specific database stuff with standard JDBC and contribute it.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

Re: Log4j as "Source-Code Level" or "Compiled (black-box) Component"Reuse?

[Kevin Steppe <ks...@pacbell.net>]

Personally I try to use packages as reused components as much as possible.  Open
Source projects tend to lack the extensive documentation generated by a
commercial projects documentation team so I find I often need to 'look under the
hood' to understand how things should get used.  For extensions polymorphism is
definately the way to go and having the source makes it -so- much easier to know
how to write a subclass.  Speaking of extensions, I have just written a
JDBCAppender for my employer.  If people are interested I could easily replace
the employer specific database stuff with standard JDBC and contribute it.

Kevin