You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to rpc-user@xml.apache.org by Miguel DeAvila <md...@hotmail.com> on 2002/06/20 22:28:36 UTC
logging
It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
thoughts?
Miguel DeAvila
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:44, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > [moving discussion to dev list]
>>
>> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
>> > > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>> >>
>> >> thoughts?
>> >
>> > If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
>> > commons logging package.
>>
>> This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
>> deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
>> from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
>> downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
>> the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
>> leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
>> very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
>> some of which come from different class loaders).
>
> The commons-logging jar is pretty small, I think ~20k, and it will use
> it's standard SimpleLogger if no real logging implementations are
> present. I think this is bearable and would definitely make logging
> easier and more flexible.
I say go for it. Looks like general sentiment has this implementation
moving away from being easily usable from applets.
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:44, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > [moving discussion to dev list]
>>
>> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
>> > > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>> >>
>> >> thoughts?
>> >
>> > If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
>> > commons logging package.
>>
>> This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
>> deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
>> from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
>> downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
>> the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
>> leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
>> very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
>> some of which come from different class loaders).
>
> The commons-logging jar is pretty small, I think ~20k, and it will use
> it's standard SimpleLogger if no real logging implementations are
> present. I think this is bearable and would definitely make logging
> easier and more flexible.
I say go for it. Looks like general sentiment has this implementation
moving away from being easily usable from applets.
Re: logging
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:44, Daniel Rall wrote:
> [moving discussion to dev list]
>
> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
> >>
> >> thoughts?
> >
> > If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> > commons logging package.
>
> This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
> deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
> from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
> downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
> the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
> leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
> very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
> some of which come from different class loaders).
The commons-logging jar is pretty small, I think ~20k, and it will use
it's standard SimpleLogger if no real logging implementations are
present. I think this is bearable and would definitely make logging
easier and more flexible.
> - Dan
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
Re: logging
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:44, Daniel Rall wrote:
> [moving discussion to dev list]
>
> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
> >>
> >> thoughts?
> >
> > If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> > commons logging package.
>
> This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
> deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
> from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
> downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
> the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
> leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
> very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
> some of which come from different class loaders).
The commons-logging jar is pretty small, I think ~20k, and it will use
it's standard SimpleLogger if no real logging implementations are
present. I think this is bearable and would definitely make logging
easier and more flexible.
> - Dan
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
RE: logging
Posted by Glenn McComb <gl...@mccomb.com>.
Encapsulating logging for XML-RPC is more than a good idea, if for no other
reason than for performance and stability (try fixing a production console
java app only to find that the operator hit ctrl-S).
I agree that XML-RPC should support the overiding of a logging method with
the current default behavior (system.out). It would be a trivial change,
backward compatible, and a big improvement.
On top of this, it'd be nice if the logging methods were overloaded as well,
with args in the style of syslog, again with the default behavior routing
thru the simple logger method. Once this is done, we can actually instrument
xmlrpc server with debug log statements controlled by a property-- but this
functionaly can be incrementally added and used by those that can benefit
from it. (like me! ;)
--glenn mccomb
============================================
Glenn A. McComb tel 858.551.9218
President & CEO fax 858.777.3302
Navatar LLC La Jolla, CA
glenn@navatar.com www.navatar.com
============================================
High-Performance Internet & Wireless Systems
Architecture, Design & Development
-----Original Message-----
From: dlr@finemaltcoding.com [mailto:dlr@finemaltcoding.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:45 AM
To: rpc-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: rpc-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j
rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
RE: logging
Posted by Glenn McComb <gl...@mccomb.com>.
Encapsulating logging for XML-RPC is more than a good idea, if for no other
reason than for performance and stability (try fixing a production console
java app only to find that the operator hit ctrl-S).
I agree that XML-RPC should support the overiding of a logging method with
the current default behavior (system.out). It would be a trivial change,
backward compatible, and a big improvement.
On top of this, it'd be nice if the logging methods were overloaded as well,
with args in the style of syslog, again with the default behavior routing
thru the simple logger method. Once this is done, we can actually instrument
xmlrpc server with debug log statements controlled by a property-- but this
functionaly can be incrementally added and used by those that can benefit
from it. (like me! ;)
--glenn mccomb
============================================
Glenn A. McComb tel 858.551.9218
President & CEO fax 858.777.3302
Navatar LLC La Jolla, CA
glenn@navatar.com www.navatar.com
============================================
High-Performance Internet & Wireless Systems
Architecture, Design & Development
-----Original Message-----
From: dlr@finemaltcoding.com [mailto:dlr@finemaltcoding.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:45 AM
To: rpc-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: rpc-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j
rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
RE: logging
Posted by Glenn McComb <gl...@mccomb.com>.
Encapsulating logging for XML-RPC is more than a good idea, if for no other
reason than for performance and stability (try fixing a production console
java app only to find that the operator hit ctrl-S).
I agree that XML-RPC should support the overiding of a logging method with
the current default behavior (system.out). It would be a trivial change,
backward compatible, and a big improvement.
On top of this, it'd be nice if the logging methods were overloaded as well,
with args in the style of syslog, again with the default behavior routing
thru the simple logger method. Once this is done, we can actually instrument
xmlrpc server with debug log statements controlled by a property-- but this
functionaly can be incrementally added and used by those that can benefit
from it. (like me! ;)
--glenn mccomb
============================================
Glenn A. McComb tel 858.551.9218
President & CEO fax 858.777.3302
Navatar LLC La Jolla, CA
glenn@navatar.com www.navatar.com
============================================
High-Performance Internet & Wireless Systems
Architecture, Design & Development
-----Original Message-----
From: dlr@finemaltcoding.com [mailto:dlr@finemaltcoding.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:45 AM
To: rpc-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: rpc-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j
rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
RE: logging
Posted by Glenn McComb <gl...@mccomb.com>.
Encapsulating logging for XML-RPC is more than a good idea, if for no other
reason than for performance and stability (try fixing a production console
java app only to find that the operator hit ctrl-S).
I agree that XML-RPC should support the overiding of a logging method with
the current default behavior (system.out). It would be a trivial change,
backward compatible, and a big improvement.
On top of this, it'd be nice if the logging methods were overloaded as well,
with args in the style of syslog, again with the default behavior routing
thru the simple logger method. Once this is done, we can actually instrument
xmlrpc server with debug log statements controlled by a property-- but this
functionaly can be incrementally added and used by those that can benefit
from it. (like me! ;)
--glenn mccomb
============================================
Glenn A. McComb tel 858.551.9218
President & CEO fax 858.777.3302
Navatar LLC La Jolla, CA
glenn@navatar.com www.navatar.com
============================================
High-Performance Internet & Wireless Systems
Architecture, Design & Development
-----Original Message-----
From: dlr@finemaltcoding.com [mailto:dlr@finemaltcoding.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:45 AM
To: rpc-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: rpc-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j
rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
Re: logging
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
[moving discussion to dev list]
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> > It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
> commons logging package.
This would be very useful, but again raises the question of how to
deal with external dependencies. Many users are using the client code
from an applet (I assume that no one is using the server?), and extra
downloads (like most things) are always a PITA from applets. Building
the external dep's code into the XML-RPC JAR is not a good idea, as it
leads to conflicts and LinkageErrors, the cause of which are very,
very difficult to debug (especially in apps which use multiple JARs,
some of which come from different class loaders).
- Dan
Re: logging
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>
> thoughts?
If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
commons logging package.
> Miguel DeAvila
>
>
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
Re: logging
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 16:28, Miguel DeAvila wrote:
> It would be helpful if the xmlrpc package supported logging via log4j rather then printing to System.err ...
>
> thoughts?
If anything we should probably think about moving towards using the
commons logging package.
> Miguel DeAvila
>
>
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society