tika-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ken Krugler <kkrugler_li...@transpac.com>
Subject Re: Logging question
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:15:28 GMT

On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:37am, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>
> From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J):
>> I think the intention is *to not do* any logging as you mentioned.
>
> Yep. The last time we discussed this was in 2009 [1], and then the  
> consensus was to avoid all (or at least most) logging in Tika and  
> simply leave all upstream parsers to use their own logging mechanism.
>
> The result is that currently we have transitive dependencies to both  
> commons-logging and slf4j, and I believe some of our parsers also  
> use java.util.logging. I wouldn't be surprised if we also ended up  
> with a dependency to log4j at some point.
>
> It's then up to downstream projects to set up their logging  
> environment in a way that works for all of these libraries. For  
> example in Jackrabbit we use the slf4j bindings to map all commons- 
> logging and java.util.logging messages to slf4j, which we then  
> direct to Logback for writing out to a log file.

My question was motivated by wondering what to do when Tika itself is  
"the upstream parser". E.g. if there's some code being added to Tika  
that implements a parser (or parser-specific functionality). In these  
situations logging becomes more interesting, and harder to avoid  
completely.

It sounds like such code could use slf4j, commons-logging or  
java.util.logging, but it probably shouldn't add a new dependency on  
log4j.

Thanks,

-- Ken

--------------------------
Ken Krugler
+1 530-210-6378
http://bixolabs.com
e l a s t i c   w e b   m i n i n g






Mime
View raw message