Quick googling reveals that WAS does at least since 6.0,
http://www.webagesolutions.com/knowledgebase/waskb/waskb026/index.html
Weblogic also:
http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs81/javadocs/weblogic/logging/WLLevel.html
not sure about the others like jetty though, but you can use sl4j
adapters in the worst case in those servers, to rerout jul, am i right?
Werner
Volker Weber schrieb:
Hi,
in the thread "slf4j and myfaces" was a possible Problem mentioned:
What I'm not sure is
if the "JUL to other logging impl bridge" is multiple application
friendly. What happens if the JUL root handler is replaced (thats what
these bridges seem to do). Does this influence the servlet container
logging and other apps as well?
Seems to be true, JUL is not container friendly by default. But this needs to
be addressed by the container (and the Java Spec guys ;-) ).
It seems, this is the reason for JULI, the Tomcat logging impl.
Also JBoss solved that (as they use Tomcat ?!). See for a documentation here:
http://www.jboss.org/file-access/default/members/jbossweb/freezone/docs/latest/logging.html
They replace the LogManager by a container friendly LogManager. The JUL using
app does not need to know that.
what about the other containers (WebSphere, WebLogic, ...)?
For tobago this can be an option only if all relevant containers do
something to support this.
(sorry, to busy to research this myself)
Regards,
Volker
2009/6/10 Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]>:
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
ok, that answers my question.
currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
commons-logging to slf4j).
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for replacing cl with jul
[ ] +0
[X] -1 for keeping cl or to force a second vote for slf4j as replacement
------------------------------------------------
For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
we are fine with that, at least I hope...
For core I am totally fine in using JUL, but for some reasons I don't like
the corporate-ish voting style to force all the other sub-projects.
(read: if tobago want's to use slf4j, why not ?)
I think I will keep my +0.75 vote :-)
But I am also for a more liberal debate, if some project (-> Tobago)
want to use slf4j...
Just my 2cents...
-M
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://www.nabble.com/slf4j-and-myfaces-td23890255.html
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
