commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 09:57:16 GMT
On 07/08/2011 09:31, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gary Gregory <> wrote:
>> Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging].
> If we really have to reconsider this stuff, then I'd propose to
> a) Use java.util.logging, because it doesn't require any additional
> dependencies and is guaranteed to work anywhere.
> b) Carefully document how to bridge jul to log4j, because that's
> exactly what's required in almost any application container I am aware
> of. (The exception being Tomcat, which uses jul anyways.)
> c) If the slf4j fans insist, add similar documentation for bridging
> jul to slf4j.

+1. I like this plan.

As an aside, Tomcat doesn't use jul, it uses JULI which is a modified
commons logging implementation hard coded to output to jul by default
with an alternative Jar that is hard-coded for log4j. Why the
complexity? jul is not class loader aware which is a problem as soon as
web applications start declaring loggers with the same name.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message