11 messages in org.apache.commons.devRe: [logging] JCL2.0 design - API| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Kitching | Feb 19, 2006 3:29 pm | |
| Boris Unckel | Feb 20, 2006 1:37 am | |
| V. Karthik Kumar | Feb 20, 2006 2:05 am | |
| Emmanuel Bourg | Mar 1, 2006 2:18 am | |
| Craig McClanahan | Mar 1, 2006 9:05 am | |
| Emmanuel Bourg | Mar 1, 2006 9:22 am | |
| Simon Kitching | Mar 1, 2006 11:11 am | |
| Emmanuel Bourg | Mar 2, 2006 1:20 am | |
| Boris Unckel | Mar 2, 2006 3:35 am | |
| Emmanuel Bourg | Mar 2, 2006 6:25 am | |
| Boris Unckel | Mar 2, 2006 6:30 am |
| Subject: | Re: [logging] JCL2.0 design - API | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Boris Unckel (bori...@gmx.net) | |
| Date: | Mar 2, 2006 3:35:33 am | |
| List: | org.apache.commons.dev | |
Hello,
Von: Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> I just wanted to mention this solution if Log had to remain an interface, but I won't support it. I prefer to turn Log into an abstract class.
To turn Log into an abstract class means that no native implementation will ever be possible. It would definitly mean that you will need an wrapper class. Currently there is just x4juli supporting native JCL support for java.util.logging (X4JuliLogger extends jul.Logger implements JCL). But this is also a chance for log4j2.
The wrapper class approach has _heavy_ performance issues (Up to x-hundred percent). I am working on some benchmarking for all established loggers, but I have to check the code, provide some good ant skript before publishing.
Regards Boris