Wade Chandler wrote:
You will still be able to use your log4j while Tomcat
uses a different internal logging package.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that now, to configure our Tomcat +
our webapps, I need to do two distinct configuration mechanisms: one to
configure Catalina logs, an
--- Shankar Unni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
> > More on topic, I don't mind switching Tomcat to
> java.util.logging
>
> Umm, please don't do that. For those of us who
> *have* mastered the art
> of using log4j with Tomcat (:-)), this would be a
> giant step back
> (havi
Yoav Shapira wrote:
More on topic, I don't mind switching Tomcat to java.util.logging
Umm, please don't do that. For those of us who *have* mastered the art
of using log4j with Tomcat (:-)), this would be a giant step back
(having one logging mechanism for Tomcat and one for the webapps - an
Hola,
Ok, this particular one is not 100% FUD, it's merely hugely inflating
issues which may occur when log4j is used and is deployed in certain
ways, and which can also be caused by bugs in Tomcat's logging usage
(getting a logger without the proper classloader being bound, etc). In
the end, ha
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
For starters, I don't think the article is total FUD. It's may be
outdated, and like I said progress has been made by multiple parties
involved (Tomcat with JULI, commons-logging with its implementation,
log4j 1.3 in some relevant areas, SLF4j and other external project
Hola,
For starters, I don't think the article is total FUD. It's may be
outdated, and like I said progress has been made by multiple parties
involved (Tomcat with JULI, commons-logging with its implementation,
log4j 1.3 in some relevant areas, SLF4j and other external projects,
etc). But that's
Am 24.05.2006 um 16:18 schrieb Remy Maucherat:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
> Mmm, I'd hate having endorsed classes depend on commons-logging ;(
Could you expand this thought?
It's a simple thought, like I said, shooting from the hip.
Commons-Logging has an unfortunate history
(http://www.qos.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
> Mmm, I'd hate having endorsed classes depend on commons-logging ;(
Could you expand this thought?
It's a simple thought, like I said, shooting from the hip.
Commons-Logging has an unfortunate history
(http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp), and the deeper / hi
Hola,
> Mmm, I'd hate having endorsed classes depend on commons-logging ;(
Could you expand this thought?
It's a simple thought, like I said, shooting from the hip.
Commons-Logging has an unfortunate history
(http://www.qos.ch/logging/thinkAgain.jsp), and the deeper / higher it
is on the cla
Hi Yoav,
Mmm, I'd hate having endorsed classes depend on commons-logging ;(
Could you expand this thought?
what happens if you don't depend on commons-logging?
It's not going to be easy to instruct the JCS and JORAM communities
to stop using commons-logging just because I wish so : )
I d
Hi,
Mmm, I'd hate having endorsed classes depend on commons-logging ;( I
haven't tried it myself, nor attempted to reproduce your scenario, so
this is just shooting from the hip: what happens if you don't depend
on commons-logging?
Yoav
On 5/24/06, Javier Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
H
Hi there!
I'm working on a framework that uses its own URL scheme
("protocol": oan://host/file...) by extension of
java.net.URLStreamHandler. It also uses its own content
handlers by extension of java.net.ContentHandler.
Using Sun's default resolution mechanisms, their respective
packages are ap
12 matches
Mail list logo
