ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Re: [Vote] Logging
Date Wed, 09 May 2001 03:39:19 GMT
At 11:22  8/5/01 -0400, Russell Gold wrote:
>At 1:06 PM +1000 5/9/01, Peter Donald wrote:
>>And as I said - we don't need pluggability.
>I would tend to agree. Pluggability in a logging service is a bit of
over-engineering. But given the intended timeframe of Ant 2, doesn't
shooting for the JSR make the most sense?  That ways, when JDK 1.4 comes
out, Ant can use its logging API directly, rather than adding its own.
This is also the best argument for log4j - to the extent that the standard
logging API will follow the path set by log4j, it will probably be the
easiest bridge to the standard.

The standard API is jdk1.4 specific (last release changed it to
java.util.logging.*) and can't be used on lower jdks. It is alos the same
model as logkit (as log4j and logkit share same model).

>If it were not for these factors, I would tend to agree with you that
logkit would be preferred - a simpler API is generally to be favored over a
more complex one, and the greater historical stability could be a good sign
as well. But with a standard looming ever closer on the horizon, it would
seem to be spitting in the wind to ignore it.

I would actually prefer the standard and 90% likely that when the jdk1.4 is
standard JVM drop logkit (event though the logging JSR has more than a few
wrinkles) but as it stands now we can't go standard route ;(



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message