logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Goran Karlic <goran.kar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redirect log4j to JUL
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:25:42 GMT
That's interesting! Whoever was the spec lead on JUL should've listened: "Those who think they
know better -- they usually do know better".

I appreciate you spending time explaining this.

> On 05 Jan 2015, at 23:12, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, both Log4j 1.x and Commons Logging were implemented before JDK 1.4 when Java logging
was introduced. I have been told the JDK spec writers spoke to Ceki (a significant contributor
to Log4j 1.x) and mostly ignored what he advised them to do.  As a consequence SLF4J, Logback
and Log4j 2 all exist because it was felt that the JDK implementation is insufficient.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Shawn Heisey <apache@elyograg.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/5/2015 7:09 AM, Goran Karlic wrote:
>>> I looked into SLF4J - it seems an overkill for the situation: around 95% of logs
are JUL, maybe 5% log4j.
>>> 
>>> Adding multiple SLF4J jars for that 5% with their overhead is not really an option
-- But I'll think about it anyway, since it seems the only "fair" solution.
>>> 
>>> I'll ask the dev of that module to switch from log4j to JUL, seems the simplest
solution (never would have thought that before - but one can always learn :-)
>> 
>> From the code side, I'm really only familiar with slf4j, but I would
>> imagine that if the developer is using log4j, they would consider JUL to
>> be a major step backwards and will not want to do it ... but they MIGHT
>> be willing to switch to slf4j.  With slf4j, the developer (and in some
>> cases, like with Solr, the end-user) can easily change the final logging
>> endpoint to whatever framework they like best, without changing the code
>> at all.
>> 
>> From the user side, I find log4j's configuration to be a lot more
>> flexible than JUL.  I have never looked into the performance.  Putting
>> forth a conjecture: if the performance and flexibility of the logging
>> built into Java were good enough, I don't think that Apache would have
>> bothered with two of their own systems for logging -- log4j and the
>> logging subproject under commons.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Shawn
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message