You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2005/06/06 14:22:14 UTC
[Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
So, please cast your votes on the following:
We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
(LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
In a second vote we will vote about the default logging system.
Carsten
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111749200600001&r=1&w=2
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
>that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
>
>So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
>We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
>the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
>configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
>(LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
>The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
>LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
>allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>
>
+1
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Geert Josten <Ge...@daidalos.nl>.
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit.
+1
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
> that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
>
> So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>
+1
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
>that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
>
>So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
>We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
>the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
>configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
>(LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
>The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
>LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
>allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>
>In a second vote we will vote about the default logging system.
>
>Carsten
>
>[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111749200600001&r=1&w=2
>
>
+1
Ralph
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Geert Josten <Ge...@daidalos.nl>.
I have the source distribution of Cocoon 2.1.6 and have only switched on the blocks 'batik', 'fop'
and 'paranoid', but I _am_ getting jdtcore.jar?
Can anyone tell whether it is really necessary? I have to run Cocoon with the Paranoid class loader
to prevent Cocoon from using the Oracle XML Parser provided by the Oracle Application Server and I'd
like to keep the Web-inf/lib/ as tiny as possible.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Geert
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Geert Josten wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not
>> using XSP currently, so I am
>> wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to
>> affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
>
>
> In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't
> know what BRANCH_2_1_X does.
>
--
=====================================
NB: het Daidalos kantoor is sinds 22 april
jl. gevestigd op een nieuw adres:
Daidalos BV
Hoekeindsehof 1 - 4
2665 JZ Bleiswijk
tel: +31 (0)10 850 12 00
fax: +31 (0)10 850 11 99
Bovenstaand adres is tevens het postadres.
======================
Geert.Josten@Daidalos.nl
IT-consultant at Daidalos BV
http://www.daidalos.nl/
GPG: 1024D/12DEBB50
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
> i meant javascript flow :-)
that's interesting ...did not know that
>>> And sitemap in 2.2 should be using it as well...
>>
>>
>> the sitemap? whatfor?
>
>
> supposedly it can recompile stuff
we don't have auto compiling at that
stage yet ...only auto reloading when
your favorite ide did the external
recompile of the classes.
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not
>>>>>using XSP currently, so I am
>>>>>wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to
>>>>>affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't
>>>>know what BRANCH_2_1_X does.
>>>
>>>
>>>it's also required for javaflow auto compilation
>>>...but that should be it
>>
>>
>>Isn't flow in 2.1 uses it?
>
>
> yes, that's what I meant ;)
i meant javascript flow :-)
>>And sitemap in 2.2 should be using it as well...
>
> the sitemap? whatfor?
supposedly it can recompile stuff
Vadim
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>>>> Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not
>>>> using XSP currently, so I am
>>>> wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to
>>>> affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't
>>> know what BRANCH_2_1_X does.
>>
>>
>>
>> it's also required for javaflow auto compilation
>> ...but that should be it
>
>
> Isn't flow in 2.1 uses it?
yes, that's what I meant ;)
> And sitemap in 2.2 should be using it as well...
the sitemap? whatfor?
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not
>>>using XSP currently, so I am
>>>wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to
>>>affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
>>
>>
>>In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't
>>know what BRANCH_2_1_X does.
>
>
> it's also required for javaflow auto compilation
> ...but that should be it
Isn't flow in 2.1 uses it? And sitemap in 2.2 should be using it as well...
Vadim
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
>> Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not
>> using XSP currently, so I am
>> wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to
>> affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
>
>
> In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't
> know what BRANCH_2_1_X does.
it's also required for javaflow auto compilation
...but that should be it
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Geert Josten wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not using XSP currently, so I am
> wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
In trunk jdtcore.jar is only added if you enable the XSP block. Don't know what
BRANCH_2_1_X does.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
JDTCore.jar used for XSP only?
Posted by Geert Josten <Ge...@daidalos.nl>.
Hi,
Is jdtcore.jar only used for compiling Java for XSP pages? I'm not using XSP currently, so I am
wondering if I can just eliminate that jar file. It doesn't seem to affect Cocoon. Can anyone confirm?
Thanks,
Geert
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Lun, 6 de Junio de 2005, 7:22, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
...
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit.
+1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Ugo Cei <ug...@apache.org>.
Il giorno 06/giu/05, alle 14:22, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
+1
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Tech Blog: http://agylen.com/
Open Source Zone: http://oszone.org/
Wine & Food Blog: http://www.divinocibo.it/
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
> that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
>
> So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
+1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 6 juin 05, à 14:22, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> ...We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit..
+1
-Bertrand
Re: Default logging system
Posted by Geert Josten <Ge...@daidalos.nl>.
> I guess you configured the Log4JLoggerManager in web.xml? What happened
> then?
>
> Carsten
To be honest: with the current settings nothing is being logged.. (nothing from Cocoon at least) :-P
I tried several things, but nothing with the result I was looking for.
Currently I have the following settings:
* force-property on org.apache.commons.logging.Log _disabled_
* logkit-config pointing to Web-inf/logkit.xconf
* servlet-logger set to 'access'
* cocoon-logger set to 'core'
* log-level set to 'WARN'
* logger-class set to 'org.apache.avalon.excalibur.logger.Log4JLoggerManager'
* log4j-config not set
Changing log4j-config gives logging only if I specify a physical file in the log4j.xconf. But the
problem is that in the Oracle Application Server the context is not file system but the war itself
and references to web-inf/logs/log4j.log are not possible there. Besides, we would like to just get
the messages in the log of the application server, no matter how it is configured.
So I would guess that logkit-config (which is necessary I believe) and log4j-config should not be
necessary at all and the logger-class should be recieved from the application server, perhaps as a
system-property?
Now I don't know what happens when no logging is explicitly set in the Application server, or what
if there is no application server (running Cocoon standalone for instance), but isn't there a
logging class distributed with java?
Cheers,
Geert
Re: Default logging system
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Geert Josten wrote:
>>In a second vote we will vote about the default logging system.
>
>
> As a remark I'd like to add that just recently we deployed Cocoon in both Oracle Application Server
> and Tomcat that were configured to use Log4J. But in neither case, it seemed possible to get the
> Cocoon log messages (both cocoon itself and the component logging etc) into those logs. Is it
> possible to just use the application server logging settings as default?
>
I guess you configured the Log4JLoggerManager in web.xml? What happened
then?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Default logging system (was: Vote on Reduce dependencies to LogKit)
Posted by Geert Josten <Ge...@daidalos.nl>.
> In a second vote we will vote about the default logging system.
As a remark I'd like to add that just recently we deployed Cocoon in both Oracle Application Server
and Tomcat that were configured to use Log4J. But in neither case, it seemed possible to get the
Cocoon log messages (both cocoon itself and the component logging etc) into those logs. Is it
possible to just use the application server logging settings as default?
Cheers,
Geert
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
So far we have many +1s and no -1, so I will reduce the dependencies in
the next days.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
peter royal wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
>>> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
>>> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming "boot phase" uses servlet context logger; +1
>
>
> +1
+1
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
>> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
>> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>>
>
> Assuming "boot phase" uses servlet context logger; +1
+1
-pete
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> Assuming "boot phase" uses servlet context logger;
>
Yes (in the case of the servlet env).
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
Assuming "boot phase" uses servlet context logger; +1
Vadim
Re: [Vote] Reduce dependencies to LogKit
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> We recently discussed the famous logging topic [1] and it seems
> that we agree to reduce the dependencies to LogKit.
>
> So, please cast your votes on the following:
>
> We remove all direct dependencies to LogKit. The logging will still use
> the LoggerManager interface through which LogKit can be
> configured as the logging system for Cocoon. The logging infrastructure
> (LogEnabled) is not affected by the changes; it works like before.
> The only difference is the boot phase of Cocoon. We currently use
> LogKit hardcoded there as well; this dependency will be removed. This
> allows to run Cocoon without the logkit.jar.
>
> In a second vote we will vote about the default logging system.
+1
--
Leszek Gawron lgawron@mobilebox.pl
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65