You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de> on 2003/08/28 11:32:29 UTC
Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its lack
of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best logging
package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to it. If Cocoon
was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have them forwarded
to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS. Log4j allows
this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to turn on and
off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is used in so
many other products that it is a recognized standard logging mechanism that
many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to contemplate
this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the following
quesitons.
1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely be
happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon core
components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
lines in cocoon?
4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
core cocoon?
I would be interested in comments and opinions.
-- Robert
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
IIRC from the ever and ever happening discussion about the best
logging toolkit is that Log4j breaks inversion of control (IOC):
class A
{
static Category cat =
Category.getInstance(A.class.getName());
...
}
class B
{
static Category cat =
Category.getInstance("A");
...
}
You see what I mean! Log4J is based on conventions for the logging
category which each class defines by itself whereas Logkit is based of
IOC and a class dosn't define it's own logger. This for me makes logkit
much more secure for server side applications.
Also, you should take a look into the org.apache.log.output package to
see that logkit supports all you'd like your output to be sent to.
Giacomo
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert Simmons wrote:
> One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its lack
> of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best logging
> package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to it. If Cocoon
> was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
>
> Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
> files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have them forwarded
> to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS. Log4j allows
> this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to turn on and
> off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is used in so
> many other products that it is a recognized standard logging mechanism that
> many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
>
> Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to contemplate
> this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the following
> quesitons.
>
> 1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
> manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely be
> happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
>
> 2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon core
> components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
>
> 3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
> lines in cocoon?
>
> 4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
> core cocoon?
>
> I would be interested in comments and opinions.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
>
>
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
> One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its lack
> of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best logging
> package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to it. If Cocoon
> was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
It is doable with Fortress, Merlin, or Phoenix. Phoenix is not designed for
Cocoon like applications, so your choise is Fortress and Merlin. There is
already support for it.
> Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
> files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have them forwarded
> to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS. Log4j allows
> this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to turn on and
> off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is used in so
> many other products that it is a recognized standard logging mechanism that
> many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
Still doable with LogKit.
As to turning logging on and off to individual components:
It is assuming that you have a class name == component name relationship. That
is not really helpful in a situation where we have many instances of the same
class. LogKit can turn on and off individual *categories* which is what Log4J
does. Both provide this ability.
> Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to contemplate
> this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the following
> quesitons.
>
> 1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
> manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely be
> happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
Avalon has a logger wrapping system. All that needs to be done is rip out
the LogKit backed loggers and place in the Log4J ones. That is assuming
that all logging components are using LogEnabled as opposed to Loggable.
> 2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon core
> components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
Not hard at all. The main thing I would advise against is using the static
accessors. The components are assigned the categories from the container,
and I would prefer to keep it that way.
> 3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
> lines in cocoon?
Not sure. No need for it though.
> 4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
> core cocoon?
You only need to upgrade the core cocoon.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
> One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its lack
> of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best logging
> package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to it. If Cocoon
> was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
Log4J is already integrated into avalon logkit. I'm not a logkit expert,
but I guess it would require very little (if any) work to have Cocoon
logging to Log4J targets. Is the opposite true? :-)
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
(Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
To be honest, the condescending attitude you display here doesnt help me
feel warm and fuzzy all over. I can take criticism. Can you? But then I
think I will drop this convewrsation as it likely doesnt belong in this
list.
-- Robert
"Steven Noels" <st...@outerthought.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308281320041.17384-100000@cocoondev.org...
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert Simmons wrote:
>
> > It is .. Ive been wrong before and I admit Im no Avalon or cocoon source
> > code expert. Im very direct in my style and I wish people wouldnt take
it
> > offensively. I merely abhor cheerleading. There are lots of things I
love
> > about cocoon but the logging irritates me. *shrug* =^)
>
> From someone who learned this himself the hard way:
>
> In an email conversation, don't expect your recipients to cope with 'your
> style' just because you have explained them you mean no harm, and you
> 'just happen to be direct'.
>
> I find it much more effective if you try and shape your style towards
> optimal reception by your recipients: not by easy excuses for your
> directness, but by showing _you_ are aware of this directness, and are
> willing to tone down in respect for your recipients.
>
> I'll now refrain from helping you in getting connected with this
> community, and I do hope you are able to flex your directness into a more
> positive style of communication.
>
> Don't expect us to feel honoured just by your presence. The fact you are
> coming back says all.
>
> With the best intentions,
>
> Cheers,
>
> </Steven>
>
>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert Simmons wrote:
> It is .. Ive been wrong before and I admit Im no Avalon or cocoon source
> code expert. Im very direct in my style and I wish people wouldnt take it
> offensively. I merely abhor cheerleading. There are lots of things I love
> about cocoon but the logging irritates me. *shrug* =^)
>From someone who learned this himself the hard way:
In an email conversation, don't expect your recipients to cope with 'your
style' just because you have explained them you mean no harm, and you
'just happen to be direct'.
I find it much more effective if you try and shape your style towards
optimal reception by your recipients: not by easy excuses for your
directness, but by showing _you_ are aware of this directness, and are
willing to tone down in respect for your recipients.
I'll now refrain from helping you in getting connected with this
community, and I do hope you are able to flex your directness into a more
positive style of communication.
Don't expect us to feel honoured just by your presence. The fact you are
coming back says all.
With the best intentions,
Cheers,
</Steven>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
It is .. Ive been wrong before and I admit Im no Avalon or cocoon source
code expert. Im very direct in my style and I wish people wouldnt take it
offensively. I merely abhor cheerleading. There are lots of things I love
about cocoon but the logging irritates me. *shrug* =^)
"Reinhard Poetz" <re...@apache.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:000101c36d51$375fce30$1e01a8c0@WRPO...
>
> > From: Robert Simmons
> >
> >
> > "Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im
> > Newsbeitrag news:3F4DD22A.6030004@apache.org...
> > > Robert Simmons wrote:
> > > > Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging
> > > > mechanism completely.
> > >
> > > You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much
> > > more than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
> >
> > How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate
> > performance problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the
> > fact that Log4j is faster
>
> Have you ever done some serious tests that you can claim this?
>
>
> > and far more powerful and flexible
> > in production environments where you may want logging to go
> > to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most other
> > java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon
> > logging. This allows a support center to set up a logging
> > monitor stations for system health monitoring.
> >
> > I think about the business applications of cocoon which are
> > far different than the open source programming aspects.
> >
> > > 1. Avalon logkit can use Log4J as the backend enging while, to the
> > > best of my knowledge, the opposite is not true;
> >
> > Then you have a multi-layer logging mechanism which is evil
> > for performance reasons.
> >
> > > 2. logging is tightly integrated inside the Avalon
> > lifecycle, which is
> > > tied to logkit. Changing it to Log4J would be painful to say the
> > > least.
> >
> > This point I cant speak to. Personally I know so few products
> > that use avalon that I wonder why cocoon hasnt gotten away
> > from it but perhaps that isnt possible. *shrug* Avalon is as
> > old as AWT and I think just as outdated.
>
> could you please fill in:
>
> AWT : Avalon = Swing : ?
>
>
> Sorry, I can't take it very serious if someone says we should remove
> Avalon from Cocoon. This would be the same if I say you should completly
> rewrite a working Swing application in favour of SWT ...
>
> >
> > > But, in case there are very good reasons for it, I guess no Cocoon
> > > developer was ever married to logkit, and a better solution
> > is always
> > > welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
> >
> > Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness.
>
> You say it - I hope it was meant in both directions.
>
> Cheers,
> Reinhard
>
>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino said:
> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
> "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might
> be room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the
> Cocoon community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
YES, I couldn't agree more, and Forrest has kind of shown the way
(although it could be a lot better).
I foresee a future, where the Cocooners will be at the bedrock of
the framework, and most people today using Cocoon will be using one
out of a few Cocoon-based App Servers, each targetting different
production environments, publishing, CMS, Wiki, eCommerce, process
control and so on.
Niclas
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote, On 28/08/2003 13.19:
...
> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
> "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might be
> room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the Cocoon
> community in these issues.
Use Forrest, a prepackaged and starter-friendly Cocoon. :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Robert Simmons wrote:
>
> > I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt put words in
> > my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business environment are
> > quite different then the demands of non-business environments.
>
> Please rest assured that many (probably most) of us know what the
> demands of business environments are.
>
> > Many open
> > source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it
> > sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For example, the
> > decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of
> > going in the opposite direction of business. Many business consultants are
> > not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
>
> Oh, gosh... will not distributing a binary build be enough for us not to
> "cross the bridge"? Let's have a party on this side of the river with
> Linus then. Oh, and please tell me where you are going to find Gnome or
> KDE binary distributions (RPM, DEB and other linux distro packages don't
> count). And tell the FreeBSD guys that their port system is doomed.
>
> Anyway, here is your binary distribution:
>
> $ cat > setup.sh
> ./build.sh war > install.log 2>&1
> if [ $? == 0 ]
> then
> echo "Installation successful, Cocoon war installed in
> `pwd`/build/cocoon.war"
> else
> echo "Installation failed, plese check install.log for details"
> fi
> ^D
>
> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
> "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might be
> room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the Cocoon
> community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
Thanks for taking the energy. I couldn't say it any better.
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 13:19 Europe/Rome, Gianugo Rabellino
wrote:
> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
> "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might be
> room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the Cocoon
> community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
I hope they are not, because such an effort would be wiped away by the
block system in Cocoon 2.2 ;-)
--
Stefano.
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Robert Simmons wrote:
<snip/>
>> Many open
>> source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it
>> sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For
>> example, the
>> decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of
>> going in the opposite direction of business. Many business
>> consultants are
>> not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
>
>
> Oh, gosh... will not distributing a binary build be enough for us not
> to "cross the bridge"? Let's have a party on this side of the river
> with Linus then. Oh, and please tell me where you are going to find
> Gnome or KDE binary distributions (RPM, DEB and other linux distro
> packages don't count). And tell the FreeBSD guys that their port
> system is doomed.
Gianugo, I'm outraged! How could you forget to mention Gentoo???!!!
LOL
Vadim
RE: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> So, I am sure Carsten & Co, can provide some easier way to configure
> this, than present day, and perhaps it should be the default
> configuration to use Log4J as the backend.
As I said in my first reply in this thread, the code is in avalon already,
using it in Cocoon should be only some lines + testing.
If someone wants to do the work, I can give more pointers.
Carsten
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Robert,
putting aside the attitude discussion for a while and go back to the
facts on the table;
You would like to use Log4J in the production environment.
GOOD!
You want to re-write Cocoon to explicitly do the Log4J "lookup" of
the Logger through the Logger static method.
NOT SO GOOD, in my humble opinion.
I have been convinced about the advantage of Inversion of Control
that Avalon is strongly promoting. Provide the logger to the
component is much more flexible, and some say more secure (of which
I can't tell.)
The Avalon approach, allows that a very slim Logger layer can be
mapped on top of basically any logger backend, and the Avalon
community provides a few, although I am not sure if it is fully
supported in the older ECM (agree ancient Avalon container), but I
think it is.
So, I am sure Carsten & Co, can provide some easier way to configure
this, than present day, and perhaps it should be the default
configuration to use Log4J as the backend.
The performance hit, using the extra layer, would be far less than
it takes Log4J to do something about the message, and if the Cocoon
code properly use, logger.isXXXEnabled(), the main culprit of
logging (debug statements being constructed) performance degrade is
eliminated.
Isn't this what you are REALLY asking for?
Instead of; "Let's throw all that out, and re-implement against a
package, that we can't easily change in the future".
Trying to be constructive.
Niclas
Robert Simmons said:
> <quote>I wasnt insulting anyone and i appologize if it sounded
> like that. </quote>
>
> I noticed you failed to copy that block into your acerbic reply. I
> appologized once, I wont do it again.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> "Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3F4DE556.80600@apache.org...
>> Robert Simmons wrote:
>>
>> > I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt
>> put words
> in
>> > my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business
>> environment are quite different then the demands of
>> non-business environments.
>>
>> Please rest assured that many (probably most) of us know what
>> the demands of business environments are.
>>
>> > Many open
>> > source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few
>> have done it sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j,
>> tomcat, jboss). For example,
> the
>> > decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good
>> example of going in the opposite direction of business. Many
>> business consultants
> are
>> > not interested in building source, but rather using the
>> product as is.
>>
>> Oh, gosh... will not distributing a binary build be enough for
>> us not to "cross the bridge"? Let's have a party on this side of
>> the river with Linus then. Oh, and please tell me where you are
>> going to find Gnome or KDE binary distributions (RPM, DEB and
>> other linux distro packages don't count). And tell the FreeBSD
>> guys that their port system is doomed.
>>
>> Anyway, here is your binary distribution:
>>
>> $ cat > setup.sh
>> ./build.sh war > install.log 2>&1
>> if [ $? == 0 ]
>> then
>> echo "Installation successful, Cocoon war installed in
>> `pwd`/build/cocoon.war"
>> else
>> echo "Installation failed, plese check install.log for
>> details"
>> fi
>> ^D
>>
>> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not
>> being "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that
>> there might be room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's
>> RedHat, providing
>> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the
>> Cocoon community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> --
>> Gianugo Rabellino
>> Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
>> Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
>> (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
<quote>I wasnt insulting anyone and i appologize if it sounded like that.
</quote>
I noticed you failed to copy that block into your acerbic reply. I
appologized once, I wont do it again.
-- Robert
"Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F4DE556.80600@apache.org...
> Robert Simmons wrote:
>
> > I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt put words
in
> > my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business environment are
> > quite different then the demands of non-business environments.
>
> Please rest assured that many (probably most) of us know what the
> demands of business environments are.
>
> > Many open
> > source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it
> > sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For example,
the
> > decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of
> > going in the opposite direction of business. Many business consultants
are
> > not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
>
> Oh, gosh... will not distributing a binary build be enough for us not to
> "cross the bridge"? Let's have a party on this side of the river with
> Linus then. Oh, and please tell me where you are going to find Gnome or
> KDE binary distributions (RPM, DEB and other linux distro packages don't
> count). And tell the FreeBSD guys that their port system is doomed.
>
> Anyway, here is your binary distribution:
>
> $ cat > setup.sh
> ./build.sh war > install.log 2>&1
> if [ $? == 0 ]
> then
> echo "Installation successful, Cocoon war installed in
> `pwd`/build/cocoon.war"
> else
> echo "Installation failed, plese check install.log for details"
> fi
> ^D
>
> Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
> "business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might be
> room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
> "production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the Cocoon
> community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
> Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
> (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
>
>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
> I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt put words in
> my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business environment are
> quite different then the demands of non-business environments.
Please rest assured that many (probably most) of us know what the
demands of business environments are.
> Many open
> source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it
> sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For example, the
> decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of
> going in the opposite direction of business. Many business consultants are
> not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
Oh, gosh... will not distributing a binary build be enough for us not to
"cross the bridge"? Let's have a party on this side of the river with
Linus then. Oh, and please tell me where you are going to find Gnome or
KDE binary distributions (RPM, DEB and other linux distro packages don't
count). And tell the FreeBSD guys that their port system is doomed.
Anyway, here is your binary distribution:
$ cat > setup.sh
./build.sh war > install.log 2>&1
if [ $? == 0 ]
then
echo "Installation successful, Cocoon war installed in
`pwd`/build/cocoon.war"
else
echo "Installation failed, plese check install.log for details"
fi
^D
Rant apart, you might have a point in blaming Cocoon of not being
"business friendly", and I'm starting to consider that there might be
room for someone to come up and be Cocoon's RedHat, providing
"production" builds and "certified" WARs, thus relieving the Cocoon
community in these issues. Any Orixians listening? ;-))
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
(Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt put words in
my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business environment are
quite different then the demands of non-business environments. Many open
source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it
sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For example, the
decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of
going in the opposite direction of business. Many business consultants are
not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
I wasnt insulting anyone and i appologize if it sounded like that. However,
we have to recognize that Cocoon, although great, has some shortfalls when
it comes to business applications.
-- Robert
"Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F4DDA9C.30001@apache.org...
> Robert Simmons wrote:
>
> >>>Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
> >>>completely.
> >>
> >>You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much more
> >>than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
> >
> >
> > How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate
performance
> > problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the fact that Log4j is
faster
> > and far more powerful and flexible in production environments where you
may
> > want logging to go to a specific server. Also how about the fact that
most
> > other java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon
logging.
>
> All nice & dandy, but I'd like to see some figures to prove your
> statements: what does "faster" actually mean? Are there any benchmarks
> around? So far the only problem you outlined was the multi-layer
> performance hit. Now, I can't speak for the actual Log4J avalon adapter
> performance, but:
>
> 1. are you sure that you can't achieve the same result with logkit? I'm
> succesfully logging to a remote server ATM using syslog, and I have no
> problems with it;
>
> 2. JMS logging and performance concerns are oxymorons. Multi layered
> logging would be a breeze compared to what it takes to build and send a
> JMS message;
>
> 3. A production Cocoon does not log much. If you raise the log level to
> WARN (or even INFO), you won't get so much logging to be concerned about
> performance. Since (almost) every log statament is wrapped if
> is*Enabled() methods, you will never hit the multilayer performance issue.
>
>
> > I think about the business applications of cocoon which are far
different
> > than the open source programming aspects.
>
> > Avalon is as old as AWT and I think just as outdated.
>
> These two statements are overly aggressive and somehow insulting. We do
> business with Cocoon, and most of us have experience with large sites
> and serious logging needs. Accusing the Cocoon and Avalon committers of
> being childish open source kiddies playing with their toy and not being
> innovative is not a good way to sell your point.
>
> > welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
> >
> >
> > Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness.
>
> Lets make a deal and avoid both stubborness and aggressive attitude
> then. I would suggest you to discuss the Log4J vs. Logkit implementation
> issues on the proper lists and come back here with more evidence. You
> might even convince the Avalon guys to switch to Logkit...
>
> Ciao,
>
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
> Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
> (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
>
>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Lets make a deal and avoid both stubborness and aggressive attitude
> then. I would suggest you to discuss the Log4J vs. Logkit implementation
> issues on the proper lists and come back here with more evidence. You
> might even convince the Avalon guys to switch to Logkit...
For what its worth, Avalon is working with the Log4J folks. The new
containers (ECM is old and outdated) there is no die-hard need to use
LogKit. There also is no die-hard need to tie ourselves to Log4J. Some
people might want to use (gasp, cough, choke) JDK 1.4 logging. It's still
possibile with Avalon.
Say what you will, we are ahead of you on this matter.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
>>>Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
>>>completely.
>>
>>You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much more
>>than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
>
>
> How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate performance
> problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the fact that Log4j is faster
> and far more powerful and flexible in production environments where you may
> want logging to go to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most
> other java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon logging.
All nice & dandy, but I'd like to see some figures to prove your
statements: what does "faster" actually mean? Are there any benchmarks
around? So far the only problem you outlined was the multi-layer
performance hit. Now, I can't speak for the actual Log4J avalon adapter
performance, but:
1. are you sure that you can't achieve the same result with logkit? I'm
succesfully logging to a remote server ATM using syslog, and I have no
problems with it;
2. JMS logging and performance concerns are oxymorons. Multi layered
logging would be a breeze compared to what it takes to build and send a
JMS message;
3. A production Cocoon does not log much. If you raise the log level to
WARN (or even INFO), you won't get so much logging to be concerned about
performance. Since (almost) every log statament is wrapped if
is*Enabled() methods, you will never hit the multilayer performance issue.
> I think about the business applications of cocoon which are far different
> than the open source programming aspects.
> Avalon is as old as AWT and I think just as outdated.
These two statements are overly aggressive and somehow insulting. We do
business with Cocoon, and most of us have experience with large sites
and serious logging needs. Accusing the Cocoon and Avalon committers of
being childish open source kiddies playing with their toy and not being
innovative is not a good way to sell your point.
> welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
>
>
> Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness.
Lets make a deal and avoid both stubborness and aggressive attitude
then. I would suggest you to discuss the Log4J vs. Logkit implementation
issues on the proper lists and come back here with more evidence. You
might even convince the Avalon guys to switch to Logkit...
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
(Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
RE: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
> From: Robert Simmons
>
>
> "Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:3F4DD22A.6030004@apache.org...
> > Robert Simmons wrote:
> > > Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging
> > > mechanism completely.
> >
> > You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much
> > more than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
>
> How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate
> performance problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the
> fact that Log4j is faster
Have you ever done some serious tests that you can claim this?
> and far more powerful and flexible
> in production environments where you may want logging to go
> to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most other
> java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon
> logging. This allows a support center to set up a logging
> monitor stations for system health monitoring.
>
> I think about the business applications of cocoon which are
> far different than the open source programming aspects.
>
> > 1. Avalon logkit can use Log4J as the backend enging while, to the
> > best of my knowledge, the opposite is not true;
>
> Then you have a multi-layer logging mechanism which is evil
> for performance reasons.
>
> > 2. logging is tightly integrated inside the Avalon
> lifecycle, which is
> > tied to logkit. Changing it to Log4J would be painful to say the
> > least.
>
> This point I cant speak to. Personally I know so few products
> that use avalon that I wonder why cocoon hasnt gotten away
> from it but perhaps that isnt possible. *shrug* Avalon is as
> old as AWT and I think just as outdated.
could you please fill in:
AWT : Avalon = Swing : ?
Sorry, I can't take it very serious if someone says we should remove
Avalon from Cocoon. This would be the same if I say you should completly
rewrite a working Swing application in favour of SWT ...
>
> > But, in case there are very good reasons for it, I guess no Cocoon
> > developer was ever married to logkit, and a better solution
> is always
> > welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
>
> Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness.
You say it - I hope it was meant in both directions.
Cheers,
Reinhard
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
"Gianugo Rabellino" <gi...@apache.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F4DD22A.6030004@apache.org...
> Robert Simmons wrote:
> > Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
> > completely.
>
> You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much more
> than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate performance
problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the fact that Log4j is faster
and far more powerful and flexible in production environments where you may
want logging to go to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most
other java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon logging.
This allows a support center to set up a logging monitor stations for system
health monitoring.
I think about the business applications of cocoon which are far different
than the open source programming aspects.
> 1. Avalon logkit can use Log4J as the backend enging while, to the best
> of my knowledge, the opposite is not true;
Then you have a multi-layer logging mechanism which is evil for performance
reasons.
> 2. logging is tightly integrated inside the Avalon lifecycle, which is
> tied to logkit. Changing it to Log4J would be painful to say the least.
This point I cant speak to. Personally I know so few products that use
avalon that I wonder why cocoon hasnt gotten away from it but perhaps that
isnt possible. *shrug* Avalon is as old as AWT and I think just as outdated.
> But, in case there are very good reasons for it, I guess no Cocoon
> developer was ever married to logkit, and a better solution is always
> welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness.
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
> Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
> (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
>
>
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
> Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
> completely.
You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much more
than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that:
1. Avalon logkit can use Log4J as the backend enging while, to the best
of my knowledge, the opposite is not true;
2. logging is tightly integrated inside the Avalon lifecycle, which is
tied to logkit. Changing it to Log4J would be painful to say the least.
But, in case there are very good reasons for it, I guess no Cocoon
developer was ever married to logkit, and a better solution is always
welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-)
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
(Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/)
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Robert Simmons wrote:
> Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
> completely.
I would still be -1 on this because of the reasons mentioned in my
earlier mail.
Giacomo
>
> -- Robert
>
> "Carsten Ziegeler" <cz...@s-und-n.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMIEBEEOAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de...
> > The Avalon Logging can be changed to use Log4J. Currently the usage of the
> > LogKit
> > is hard-coded in Cocoon. I added the possibility to configure which
> logging
> > framework you want to use to the avalon core, but never had time to test
> it.
> > If this is working, only minor changes have to be made to Cocoon (changing
> > three
> > or four lines of code) and you can use Log4j in Cocoon.
> >
> > Carsten
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Robert Simmons
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:32 AM
> > > To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> > > Subject: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its
> lack
> > > of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best
> logging
> > > package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to
> > > it. If Cocoon
> > > was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> > > gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
> > >
> > > Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
> > > files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have
> > > them forwarded
> > > to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS.
> > > Log4j allows
> > > this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to
> > > turn on and
> > > off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is
> > > used in so
> > > many other products that it is a recognized standard logging
> > > mechanism that
> > > many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to
> contemplate
> > > this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the
> > > following
> > > quesitons.
> > >
> > > 1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
> > > manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely
> be
> > > happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
> > >
> > > 2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon
> core
> > > components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
> > >
> > > 3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
> > > lines in cocoon?
> > >
> > > 4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
> > > core cocoon?
> > >
> > > I would be interested in comments and opinions.
> > >
> > > -- Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Boon Hian Tek <bt...@pdxbtek.dyndns.org>.
Hi all,
Per-Olof Noren wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>"Should Cocoon be configured out-of-the-box for logging to a Log4J
>>backend?"
>
>
> I'd put my two cents worth of opinion in favor of this suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Pelle
>
>
If it is as easy as one line in the configuration file change,
does it matter? Configuring cocoon involves configuring "sitemap.xml"s,
block.properties, cocoon.xconf already. People who can
get (or need to) setup cocoon should be able to tweak with the
configuration files to make log4j the logger.
my 1/2 cent: Let's make sure it is configurable, and note it
somewhere how to do it.
--
Boon Tek
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Per-Olof Noren <pe...@alma.nu>.
Hi,
> "Should Cocoon be configured out-of-the-box for logging to a Log4J
> backend?"
I'd put my two cents worth of opinion in favor of this suggestion.
Regards,
Pelle
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Berin Loritsch said:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> Well, Robert's assertion is ambigious. Does he say;
>>
>> Drop
>> void enableLogging( Logger logger );
>>
>> and let every component do,
>>
>> logger = Logger.getLogger( this.getClass().getLogger() );
>>
>> OR,
>>
>> "Let Log4J be the default logger backend, and have the Log4J
>> configuration handily available."
>>
>>
>> I think Berin is -1 on the first, but more receptible to the
>> latter.
>
> I am very -1 for the first.
> I am pretty +1 for the latter.
Then the question to the community would be;
"Should Cocoon be configured out-of-the-box for logging to a Log4J
backend?"
I am in strong favour of this too, although I have no official say
in it...
Niclas
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Well, Robert's assertion is ambigious. Does he say;
>
> Drop
> void enableLogging( Logger logger );
>
> and let every component do,
>
> logger = Logger.getLogger( this.getClass().getLogger() );
>
> OR,
>
> "Let Log4J be the default logger backend, and have the Log4J
> configuration handily available."
>
>
> I think Berin is -1 on the first, but more receptible to the latter.
I am very -1 for the first.
I am pretty +1 for the latter.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 15:47 Europe/Rome, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi said:
>> Berin, I think that Robert has a valid point here, and that is
>> similar to what Avalon said about Logkit and Log4j.
>>
>> When I was still in Avalon, Avalon had informally agreed to push
>> Logkit EOL in favor of log4j, and the log4j community accepted
>> the challenge of bridging the last differences still remaining.
>>
>> Why is this point much different from the one Robert is talking
>> about?
>
> Well, Robert's assertion is ambigious. Does he say;
>
> Drop
> void enableLogging( Logger logger );
>
> and let every component do,
>
> logger = Logger.getLogger( this.getClass().getLogger() );
>
> OR,
>
> "Let Log4J be the default logger backend, and have the Log4J
> configuration handily available."
>
>
> I think Berin is -1 on the first, but more receptible to the latter.
I *strongly* dislike the use of static methods for multi-context
environments.
If I have two instances of cocoon running in the same servlet
container, which Log4j configurations will handle them? what if the log
of one servlet ends up being in the log of another one?
Huge security issue here.
--
Stefano.
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi said:
> Berin, I think that Robert has a valid point here, and that is
> similar to what Avalon said about Logkit and Log4j.
>
> When I was still in Avalon, Avalon had informally agreed to push
> Logkit EOL in favor of log4j, and the log4j community accepted
> the challenge of bridging the last differences still remaining.
>
> Why is this point much different from the one Robert is talking
> about?
Well, Robert's assertion is ambigious. Does he say;
Drop
void enableLogging( Logger logger );
and let every component do,
logger = Logger.getLogger( this.getClass().getLogger() );
OR,
"Let Log4J be the default logger backend, and have the Log4J
configuration handily available."
I think Berin is -1 on the first, but more receptible to the latter.
Niclas
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote, On 28/08/2003 15.08:
>
>> Robert Simmons wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
>>> completely.
>>
>>
>> -1000
>>
>> If I want to use a NullLogger (no logging completely, and no need for
>> a logging
>> toolkit) then I should be able to. If I want to use Log4J I should be
>> able to.
>> And if I am happy with LogKit (which is smaller BTW), then why should
>> I loose
>> that ability?
>
>
> Berin, I think that Robert has a valid point here, and that is similar
> to what Avalon said about Logkit and Log4j.
>
> When I was still in Avalon, Avalon had informally agreed to push Logkit
> EOL in favor of log4j, and the log4j community accepted the challenge of
> bridging the last differences still remaining.
>
> Why is this point much different from the one Robert is talking about?
I would be very much against marrying the Cocoon system to Log4J despite
it's advantages over LogKit. Let's assume for the moment that JDK 1.4
logging becomes mainstream over Log4J (not likely, but play devil's advocate
for a moment). If you have forceably ripped out the LogEnabled interfaces
and hardcoded against Log4J, the migration path would be very painful to
say the least.
Also, to make matters worse, not everyone has the same needs. Some shops
will blindly use corporate products or language APIs regardless of their
merit. Other shops evaluate the available libraries. If we have a very
lightweight logging abstraction that doesn't tie us down to one implementation,
we can easily make everyone happy.
Not everyone uses Log4J (as Robert asserts). I would be against coding
ourselves into a corner when there are legitimate ways to avoid the situation
_already_ in place.
Yes, informally the Avalon team will be deprecating LogKit in favor of Log4J 2.0
but it isn't out yet. Plans can change (although this seems to be a pretty
safe bet).
Lastly, the NullLogger included in Avalon Framework is orders of magnitude
faster than any of the full Logging toolkits like LogKit, Log4J, and
java.util.logging. If you don't need/want logging (extreme example), why
force it?
I can understand going backwards a short distance if the alternate route
let's us go farther. However, the proposal seems to take a good route and
trade it for a dead end. I am not for that.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote, On 28/08/2003 15.08:
> Robert Simmons wrote:
>
>> Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
>> completely.
>
> -1000
>
> If I want to use a NullLogger (no logging completely, and no need for a
> logging
> toolkit) then I should be able to. If I want to use Log4J I should be
> able to.
> And if I am happy with LogKit (which is smaller BTW), then why should I
> loose
> that ability?
Berin, I think that Robert has a valid point here, and that is similar
to what Avalon said about Logkit and Log4j.
When I was still in Avalon, Avalon had informally agreed to push Logkit
EOL in favor of log4j, and the log4j community accepted the challenge of
bridging the last differences still remaining.
Why is this point much different from the one Robert is talking about?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Robert Simmons wrote:
> Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
> completely.
-1000
If I want to use a NullLogger (no logging completely, and no need for a logging
toolkit) then I should be able to. If I want to use Log4J I should be able to.
And if I am happy with LogKit (which is smaller BTW), then why should I loose
that ability?
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Robert Simmons <ro...@norcom.de>.
Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism
completely.
-- Robert
"Carsten Ziegeler" <cz...@s-und-n.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:LKENJPKDAIKAPKHEOCMMIEBEEOAA.cziegeler@s-und-n.de...
> The Avalon Logging can be changed to use Log4J. Currently the usage of the
> LogKit
> is hard-coded in Cocoon. I added the possibility to configure which
logging
> framework you want to use to the avalon core, but never had time to test
it.
> If this is working, only minor changes have to be made to Cocoon (changing
> three
> or four lines of code) and you can use Log4j in Cocoon.
>
> Carsten
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Robert Simmons
> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:32 AM
> > To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> > Subject: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
> >
> >
> > One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its
lack
> > of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best
logging
> > package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to
> > it. If Cocoon
> > was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> > gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
> >
> > Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
> > files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have
> > them forwarded
> > to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS.
> > Log4j allows
> > this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to
> > turn on and
> > off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is
> > used in so
> > many other products that it is a recognized standard logging
> > mechanism that
> > many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
> >
> > Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to
contemplate
> > this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the
> > following
> > quesitons.
> >
> > 1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
> > manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely
be
> > happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
> >
> > 2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon
core
> > components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
> >
> > 3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
> > lines in cocoon?
> >
> > 4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
> > core cocoon?
> >
> > I would be interested in comments and opinions.
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
The Avalon Logging can be changed to use Log4J. Currently the usage of the
LogKit
is hard-coded in Cocoon. I added the possibility to configure which logging
framework you want to use to the avalon core, but never had time to test it.
If this is working, only minor changes have to be made to Cocoon (changing
three
or four lines of code) and you can use Log4j in Cocoon.
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Robert Simmons
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Porting Cocoon Logging to Log4j - Proposal and Discussion
>
>
> One of the major implementaiton complaints I have about Cocoon is its lack
> of Log4J logging functionality. Log4j, is without a doubt the best logging
> package for java. No other package can even hope to compare to
> it. If Cocoon
> was built to use Log4j instead of the avalon logging mechanism, it would
> gain an enormous amount of functionality that it lacks now.
>
> Personally, when working in a production environment, I dont want my log
> files to be put into direcroies in my web app. Id rather have
> them forwarded
> to a central log accumulation server or even sent out via JMS.
> Log4j allows
> this and many more configurations. Furthermore, it allows you to
> turn on and
> off logging on individual components with ease. Finally, Log4J is
> used in so
> many other products that it is a recognized standard logging
> mechanism that
> many organizations and even network engineers are quite familiar with.
>
> Therefore, I think Cocoon should migrate to Log4j. In order to contemplate
> this, its important that we discuss the complexities of it in the
> following
> quesitons.
>
> 1) Why has this not already been done? Is it a question of a lack of
> manpower or expertise? If so then I as well as others would most likely be
> happy to volunteer time to accomplish it.
>
> 2) How difficult is it to rip out the avalon logging from the cocoon core
> components? Im no avalon expert so I couldnt answer this myself.
>
> 3) Is there standard expressions that can be used for locatting logging
> lines in cocoon?
>
> 4) Do we upgrade some of the blocks or leave them as is and only upgrade
> core cocoon?
>
> I would be interested in comments and opinions.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>