You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> on 2005/05/31 00:24:09 UTC
Logkit jvadocs
Hi:
Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. committing soon.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:50, Reinhard Poetz dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>>
>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>
>> Is that OK?
>
> haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not to
> change it?
I think this is not the case. We have new feedback from the project. There
is a lack support for it and missing javadocs.
Things change in the time. Having a package as part of our distribution is
not an static issue. Mainly when we are receiving bad input. Or not?
Take a sample, I wanted to remove pizza.jar long time ago. At that time,
people voted against removed. Few months later (giving new facts), then
people decided to remove it. Has not that already decided too?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
>>directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
>>(b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
>>to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
>>deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
>>UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
>
>
> For the record, Ceki more or less closed UGLI and transferred it to a brand
> new external project called SLF4J, and trying hard to get the JCL folks along
> on the ride.
>
> Regarding the "shipping an UGLI jar"; The whole purpose of Ceki's static
> linking is to avoid these types of problems. If the Cocoon code finds the
> JBoss UGLI, then it will be used, otherwise it will use its own. The point is
> that which ever UGLI LogFactory that is found, IT will only use its own
> logging implementation, not getting confused with others.
>
> IMHO, the long-term(!) strategy should be to use the JDK Logging as the API,
> and "innovative people" will figure out how to redirect that to Log4J or
> something else.
...just as a head up: it seems like the ongoing commons
logging debate has triggered some actions lately. AFAIU
a lot of the former problems have beens solved...
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> IMHO, the long-term(!) strategy should be to use the JDK Logging as the API,
> and "innovative people" will figure out how to redirect that to Log4J or
> something else.
>
Yes, my thoughts go in the same direction: why not use the JDK logging?
It's available and doesn't require any additional jar.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
> directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
> (b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
> to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
> deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
> UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
For the record, Ceki more or less closed UGLI and transferred it to a brand
new external project called SLF4J, and trying hard to get the JCL folks along
on the ride.
Regarding the "shipping an UGLI jar"; The whole purpose of Ceki's static
linking is to avoid these types of problems. If the Cocoon code finds the
JBoss UGLI, then it will be used, otherwise it will use its own. The point is
that which ever UGLI LogFactory that is found, IT will only use its own
logging implementation, not getting confused with others.
IMHO, the long-term(!) strategy should be to use the JDK Logging as the API,
and "innovative people" will figure out how to redirect that to Log4J or
something else.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 01 Jun 2005, at 09:00, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Your statement implies that once a project matures and fulfills its
> purpose that it should then be abandoned because no new development is
> being done. That doesn't make sense.
+1
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 2:00, Ralph Goers dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>>
>>
>>>>>Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that OK?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>-1
>>>
>>>
> I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
> directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
> (b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
> to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
> deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
> UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
It's ok, perhaps the new default logger should not be log4j. I don't know.
But AFAIK, log4j is the defacto standard. This is why I suggested it.
>
>>
>>Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
>>and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
>>
>>
> 1. logkit isn't exactly dead. It doesn't seem like it has any known
> problems and it does what it was designed to do.
Maybe the project is not dead. Perhaps in process. Nobody replies on the
mail lists. There are no published javadocs. Nobody replies when or where
the javadocs are, well to me this signs the project is going to die. Dunno
how much months, I really don't care. I care more about cocoon and my
concerns are about the future of our logging system.
> Your statement implies
> that once a project matures and fulfills its purpose that it should then
> be abandoned because no new development is being done. That doesn't make
> sense.
IMHO, your logic in this case seems to be not correct to me.
For the records: Yes, this does not make sense. I agree.
We are using other projects that are not too much dynamic. They are
matured and his development almost stall. Can you point a mail where I am
raising concerns about them?
> 2. If there was a large concern, Cocoon could certainly fork its own
> copy of logkit. I see no need for this though.
A posibility, but is our bussiness to care about logging? AFAIK, not. We
are gluing what we think is good for cocoon.
This was mostly a HEADS-UP. I wanted to share the current state of LogKit
+ his community and his support.
>>Seems like the Logkit situation is going worse with time. Until when we
>>will stay tied to this dead project?
>>
>>
>>
> How is it getting worse?
No published javadocs. Lack of support. I know our current javadocs points
no where for avalon. I already fixed this.
>>>>haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
>>>>to change it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>+1
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>>
>>
> -1. Nothing has changed.
Why do you think so?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>>
>>
>>>>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that OK?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>
> I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
> directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
> (b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
> to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
> deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
> UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
>
>>
>> Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
>> and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
>>
>>
> 1. logkit isn't exactly dead. It doesn't seem like it has any known
> problems and it does what it was designed to do. Your statement implies
> that once a project matures and fulfills its purpose that it should then
> be abandoned because no new development is being done. That doesn't make
> sense.
> 2. If there was a large concern, Cocoon could certainly fork its own
> copy of logkit. I see no need for this though.
>
>> Seems like the Logkit situation is going worse with time. Until when we
>> will stay tied to this dead project?
>>
>>
>>
> How is it getting worse?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
>>>> to change it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>>
>>
> -1. Nothing has changed.
-0. I do not think this gives us any benefit. I had an issue once with
jetty 5.0 (which uses commons logging) + cocoon (with logkit) but now
the issue is gone and thanks to some kind of classloading magic that
cocoon did jetty is able to use SimpleLog and cocoon is using
LogKitLogger with no problem at all.
By the way: I like logkit.xconf much more that log4j xml configuration.
--
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
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>
>
>>>>Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>>
>>>>Is that OK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>-1
>>
>>
I'm also -1. I might consider replacing logkit with UGLI, but not LOG4J
directly. However, (a) UGLI is part of LOG4J 1.3 which is still alpha,
(b) an analysis needs to be done to determine how UGLI performs compared
to logkit, and (c) it needs to be determined if there will be any
deployment problems (i.e what if Weblogic/JBoss/Websphere ships its own
UGLI jar and requires that it be used).
>
>Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
>and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
>
>
1. logkit isn't exactly dead. It doesn't seem like it has any known
problems and it does what it was designed to do. Your statement implies
that once a project matures and fulfills its purpose that it should then
be abandoned because no new development is being done. That doesn't make
sense.
2. If there was a large concern, Cocoon could certainly fork its own
copy of logkit. I see no need for this though.
>Seems like the Logkit situation is going worse with time. Until when we
>will stay tied to this dead project?
>
>
>
How is it getting worse?
>>
>>
>>>haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
>>>to change it?
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>
>Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>
>
-1. Nothing has changed.
>Best Regards,
>
>Antonio Gallardo
>
>
Ralph
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> ATM, I'd say do what you want as long as:
>
> * Cocoon 2.1 stays as it is.
> * Cocoon 2.2 can be run with LogKit.
>
> I.e., I'm ok if you switch default to Log4J and remove logkit.jar, as long as I
> can put it back and change the default back to LogKit.
>
Yes, it will be possible to configure LogKit in 2.2 then, with one
difference: the "bootstrap logging" (or whatever you call) - the logging
before the logging system is initialized will not be done using LogKit.
But this should be transparent as well (I think).
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>
> I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
> see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
> Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
> mean that our logging infrastructure for components (LogEnabled) will be
> removed as well. Apart from configuration it's totally transparent.
ATM, I'd say do what you want as long as:
* Cocoon 2.1 stays as it is.
* Cocoon 2.2 can be run with LogKit.
I.e., I'm ok if you switch default to Log4J and remove logkit.jar, as long as I
can put it back and change the default back to LogKit.
Vadim
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 6:13, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps telling to replace with log4j was not good. We can change it
>> with
>> whatever else, but I don't want to have a non-suported jar in our
>> distro.
>>
> Yes, but there are only a few possibilities that make sense: log4j,
> commons logging, jdk14 - we can still support all three but need to
> decide for a default one.
Yep. This was my initial intention. Perhaps I raised a tornado by telling
my preference. Sorry.
I think we should think wich one, maybe jdk4 is a good move. This can also
means we can drop the other logging jars from our distro. And this is
good: small cocoon ditro, less jars to care of, etc.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> Perhaps telling to replace with log4j was not good. We can change it with
> whatever else, but I don't want to have a non-suported jar in our distro.
>
Yes, but there are only a few possibilities that make sense: log4j,
commons logging, jdk14 - we can still support all three but need to
decide for a default one.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 1:58, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>> Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>>
> I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
> see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
This is the idea, deprecate on the next 2.1.x release and remove it in 2.2.
> Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
> mean that our logging infrastructure for components (LogEnabled) will be
> removed as well. Apart from configuration it's totally transparent.
Perhaps telling to replace with log4j was not good. We can change it with
whatever else, but I don't want to have a non-suported jar in our distro.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Leszek Gawron wrote:
>
> Not that totally: we do not have a cocoon log formatter giving the same
> functionality as the logkit one.
>
You're right. But I guess it would be easy to provide a formatter for
whatever logging system we decide to use.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>>
>
> I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
> see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
> Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
> mean that our logging infrastructure for components (LogEnabled) will be
> removed as well. Apart from configuration it's totally transparent.
Not that totally: we do not have a cocoon log formatter giving the same
functionality as the logkit one.
--
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
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Ugo Cei <ug...@apache.org>.
Il giorno 01/giu/05, alle 08:58, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
> I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
> see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
> Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
> mean that our logging infrastructure for components (LogEnabled) will
> be
> removed as well. Apart from configuration it's totally transparent.
Yes, please. One less choice to worry about.
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Tech Blog: http://agylen.com/
Source.zone: http://sourcezone.info/
Wine & Food Blog: http://www.divinocibo.it/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
> If you are talking about keeping the dependency on
> org.apache.avalon.excalibur.logger.LoggerManager and
> org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.Logger in CocoonServlet, then I don't
> really care as those are the two interfaces I implement to use my own
> logging framework. I don't really care what the default implementation
> of these interfaces is as long as they don't go away.
Yes, these interfaces will remain.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
>
I still think we should remove the dependency to LogKit in 2.2 - we all
see now that it's a dead project. So is there any reason to keep it?
Noone else is using it and removing the dependency to LogKit does *not*
mean that our logging infrastructure for components (LogEnabled) will be
removed as well. Apart from configuration it's totally transparent.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 14:05, Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
>>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>
>>> Is that OK?
>
> -1
Can you explain your reasons? Is better to stay when the porject is then
and even on the internet is not javadocs site to point from our docs?
Seems like the Logkit situation is going worse with time. Until when we
will stay tied to this dead project?
>
>
>> haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
>> to change it?
>
> +1
Well, I think it is time to discuss again.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
"Netcraft confirms: LogKit is dying!"
:-)
>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>
>> Is that OK?
-1
> haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not
> to change it?
+1
Vadim
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 12:24, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
>
>>On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>>On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
>>>
>>>>You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
>>>
>>>Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publish the javadocs. Is
>>>this
>>>posible?
>>
>>I would like to see that too. However, I am not involved in Excalibur, and
>>I
>>also doubt that there will be any more development in LogKit, so I think
>>it
>>is fairly semi-safe to have a local copy in Cocoon's space for the time
>>being.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>
> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>
> Is that OK?
haven't we already discussed this several times and always decided not to change it?
--
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: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mie, 1 de Junio de 2005, 9:40, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>>
>> Would be hard to stop you I guess ;)
>>
>> Could you write a summary of the main issues and solution suggestions
>> from that thread? So that we don't need to repeat that discussion again.
>>
> IMHO, we should split the vote:
> a) remove dependency to LogKit
> b) select another solution
> This should prevent that the discussion about b) blocks a) :)
+1!
I think a) was already voted in favor to remove Logkit. Any way, lets
separate the vote. ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
> Would be hard to stop you I guess ;)
>
> Could you write a summary of the main issues and solution suggestions
> from that thread? So that we don't need to repeat that discussion again.
>
IMHO, we should split the vote:
a) remove dependency to LogKit
b) select another solution
This should prevent that the discussion about b) blocks a) :)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
>
>
>>Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>><snip/>
>>
>>
>>>IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>>>
>>>Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>>
>>>Is that OK?
>>>
>>>
>>Antonio,
>>
>>Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we have long discussions
>>about changing logging package a couple of times every year. The last
>>one is here:
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110492559400004&r=1&w=2
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110509059400003&r=1&w=2
>>
>>Are there any new facts? Have anybody changed his/her mind since last
>>time?
>>
>>
>
>Thanks Daniel.
>
>Rereading the threads above shows that we know we need to replace Logkit.
>Even Avalon wanted to do that sometime ago, the problem in the threads was
>we were unable to choose the succesor of Logkit.
>
>Now we are 5 months later. I think it is enough time, I believe some
>people changed his mind in this time.
>
>Should I start this discussion again?
>
>
Would be hard to stop you I guess ;)
Could you write a summary of the main issues and solution suggestions
from that thread? So that we don't need to repeat that discussion again.
/Daniel
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 13:53, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> <snip/>
>> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>>
>> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>>
>> Is that OK?
>
> Antonio,
>
> Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we have long discussions
> about changing logging package a couple of times every year. The last
> one is here:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110492559400004&r=1&w=2
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110509059400003&r=1&w=2
>
> Are there any new facts? Have anybody changed his/her mind since last
> time?
Thanks Daniel.
Rereading the threads above shows that we know we need to replace Logkit.
Even Avalon wanted to do that sometime ago, the problem in the threads was
we were unable to choose the succesor of Logkit.
Now we are 5 months later. I think it is enough time, I believe some
people changed his mind in this time.
Should I start this discussion again?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
<snip/>
> IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
>
> Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
>
> Is that OK?
Antonio,
Logkit has been dead for quite some time and we have long discussions
about changing logging package a couple of times every year. The last
one is here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110492559400004&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110509059400003&r=1&w=2
Are there any new facts? Have anybody changed his/her mind since last time?
/Daniel
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Mar, 31 de Mayo de 2005, 12:24, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
>> > You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
>>
>> Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publish the javadocs. Is
>> this
>> posible?
>
> I would like to see that too. However, I am not involved in Excalibur, and
> I
> also doubt that there will be any more development in LogKit, so I think
> it
> is fairly semi-safe to have a local copy in Cocoon's space for the time
> being.
Thanks for the reply.
IMHO, that means Logkit is dead.
Is time to moving setup log4j as our default logging package.
Is that OK?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> > You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
>
> Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publish the javadocs. Is this
> posible?
I would like to see that too. However, I am not involved in Excalibur, and I
also doubt that there will be any more development in LogKit, so I think it
is fairly semi-safe to have a local copy in Cocoon's space for the time
being.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Lun, 30 de Mayo de 2005, 23:09, Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 06:24, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
>> knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
>>
>> BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. committing soon.
>
> I have just generated the javadocs from the LogKit sitting in Avalon SVN
> for
> you.
>
> You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
Thanks Niclas. I will prefer that excalibur publish the javadocs. Is this
posible?
Dunno if cocoon is the best place for this docs.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Logkit jvadocs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 06:24, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Avalon is closed and our javadocs links to LogKit are invalid. Somebody
> knows a valid link to Logkit javadocs?
>
> BTW, I already fixed this for avalon-framework. committing soon.
I have just generated the javadocs from the LogKit sitting in Avalon SVN for
you.
You can copy it from people.apache.org:/home/niclas/javadocs/logkit
Cheers
Niclas