Hi, in a bunch of "JavaEE" projects (openejb/tomee, OWB, CXF) we have a facade in front of the logging to be able to select the framework to use. I know CL is already a facade but it has the drawback to force a dependency. Maybe it could be a more adapted approach
*Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/7/24 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > I'm working my way through the open DBCP bugs with a view to getting the > DBCP code (and the POOL code as some changes may be required there) into > a state where it is ready for the first v2 release. > > I've quickly reached DBCP-154 that requests that logging is added. This > is not a new request and goes back to DBCP-4 and possibly earlier. From > memory there are a number of open DBCP bugs that require some form of > logging. There are also lots of places where DBCP logs directly to > stdout or stderr. > > This quickly brings us to the point of having to decide which logging > framework to use. This is largely the same debate we had for POOL [1] > but with a few key differences: > - there are many more places where logging is required > - there are many more places where logging could be useful > > Because of the volume of logging, I don't believe the JMX approach used > for POOL is viable for DBCP. > > Therefore, I intend to go ahead and add a dependency on Commons-Logging. > > Mark > > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/zuufedzkfx62v5eq > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
