You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com> on 2002/03/25 23:11:11 UTC
Re: log4j 1.1.x vs log4j 1.2.x
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 18:01, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I just tried upgrading my log4j version that Scarab uses because I need to
> use a NullAppender which was added after 1.1.x and I got this exception:
>
> java.lang.NoSuchMethodError
> at org.apache.turbine.Log.init(Log.java:111)
> at org.apache.turbine.Turbine.configure(Turbine.java:592)
> at org.apache.turbine.Turbine.init(Turbine.java:182)
> at org.apache.turbine.TurbineConfig.init(TurbineConfig.java:177)
>
> Enumeration e =
> Category.getDefaultHierarchy().getCurrentCategories();
>
> Looks like the Category class has been turned into the Logging class...so, I
> guess my question is whether or not we should make the effort to switch
> Turbine to the commons-logging stuff or upgrade Log4J?
The general movement has been toward common-logging. In order to appease
a wider range of users and to allow easier integration with things like
Struts and Cocoon I believe that the commons-logging API is the way to
go.
> -jon
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: log4j 1.1.x vs log4j 1.2.x
Posted by Eric Dobbs <er...@dobbse.net>.
On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 03:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> The general movement has been toward common-logging. In order to appease
> a wider range of users and to allow easier integration with things like
> Struts and Cocoon I believe that the commons-logging API is the way to
> go.
+1
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>