You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by co...@covalent.net on 2002/02/18 19:00:36 UTC
Jk2 logging
Hi,
A quick proposal ( vote ? ): I would like to start using commons-logging
in jk2. Right now it has println() style, but beeing able to benefit
from the fine control that log4j ( and other loggers ) provides
would help a lot.
If nobody oposes, I will check in a current build of commons-logging
( with the option to override it for those who like downloading
each individual dependency ).
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Jk2 logging
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: <co...@covalent.net>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: Jk2 logging
> Hi,
>
> A quick proposal ( vote ? ): I would like to start using commons-logging
> in jk2. Right now it has println() style, but beeing able to benefit
> from the fine control that log4j ( and other loggers ) provides
> would help a lot.
>
> If nobody oposes, I will check in a current build of commons-logging
> ( with the option to override it for those who like downloading
> each individual dependency ).
>
+1
>
> Costin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Jk2 logging
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A quick proposal ( vote ? ): I would like to start using commons-logging
> in jk2. Right now it has println() style, but beeing able to benefit
> from the fine control that log4j ( and other loggers ) provides
> would help a lot.
>
> If nobody oposes, I will check in a current build of commons-logging
> ( with the option to override it for those who like downloading
> each individual dependency ).
+1
>
> Costin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Jk2 logging
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > If nobody oposes, I will check in a current build of commons-logging
> > ( with the option to override it for those who like downloading
> > each individual dependency ).
>
> -0.5. The current property system looks ok to me, and Tomcat itself already
> depends on commons-logging (indirectly), so why do that ? If you want to do
> that because of API stability concerns with commons-logging, then I think
> you should postpone using it until it is a bit more stable.
It's a matter of taste mostly. I can live with the current property
system, but I prefer the build to be as simple as possible -
'checkout the tree and type ant', without downloading other
packages, installing them, editing properties, etc.
That's a 'taste' shared by other jakarta projects. I used to believe
it is evil, and I argued a lot against it, but it certainly has
the benefit of beeing more friendly to new contributors, who don't
spend all day working on jk.
An alternative is to require the user to checkout both
jakarta-commons, and j-t-c ( and maybe j-t, j-t-4 ), like
we used to do in the old days ( with jakarta-tools ).
I just want an alternative to 'download and install and configure'.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Jk2 logging
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
> Hi,
>
> A quick proposal ( vote ? ): I would like to start using commons-logging
> in jk2. Right now it has println() style, but beeing able to benefit
> from the fine control that log4j ( and other loggers ) provides
> would help a lot.
+1.
> If nobody oposes, I will check in a current build of commons-logging
> ( with the option to override it for those who like downloading
> each individual dependency ).
-0.5. The current property system looks ok to me, and Tomcat itself already
depends on commons-logging (indirectly), so why do that ? If you want to do
that because of API stability concerns with commons-logging, then I think
you should postpone using it until it is a bit more stable.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>