[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       log4j-user
Subject:    Re: Abstracting away Log4j?
From:       "Renaud Waldura" <renaud+log4j () waldura ! com>
Date:       2001-10-29 6:23:30
[Download RAW message or body]

You want my fantastic "com.waldura.logging.Logger" Facade! :)

It's here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-user&m=100364586424195

Source code included. Do follow the thread, Ceki made some very good points.
It seems like you share our need for this.

--Renaud



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Fisher" <fisher@jfisher.com>
To: <log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:26 PM
Subject: Abstracting away Log4j?


>
> Hi folks-
>
> I'm part of a rather large Java development effort. Some time ago, I
> introduced Log4J as a logging mechanism, and it has grown to be widely
used
> across our code base. Concerns have been raised, however, that references
to
> 3rd party software should be avoided. As it is now, every single class we
> have imports log4j. There has been a suggestion that we put a "wrapper"
> around Log4J to isolate it to one or a few classes.
>
> The fact that Log4J will be moving from Category to Logger and from
Priority
> to Level in the next version certainly does fuel the concern, as now we
are
> faced with updating our code base to reflect these changes (yes, I know
they
> old classes will be staying around for a while).
>
> But, it's clear to me that Log4J is the best out there, and I'm very
> concerned that any "wrapper" we might impose on it might hinder it's
> functionality. It would seem to me that a wrapper would:
>
> - cause a second method call for every log message, causing some
>   minor (but probably minimal) reduction in performance.
>
> - no longer allow us access to extended runtime information
>   in the log messages, such as the class, method, line number, etc.
>
> What are the opinions on these two concerns? Of course, figuring in to all
> this is the java.util.logging capability of JDK1.4. I've seen a lot of
> concerns about it, but clearly Log4J is making an effort to pattern its
> class names in that direction. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that a
> standard logging interface exists, ala JDBC for database interaction. That
> would certainly help things. So, one things I've considered is sticking
with
> Log4J and changing our code to the new Logger and Priority, with the idea
> that at least we'd still be relatively close to java.util.logging
capablity.
>
> Thoughts on how I should respond to these concerns?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]