|Corona vs log4j direct access [message #1747]
||Fri, 29 September 2006 10:10
Originally posted by: claudemontpetit.gmail.com|
I am a little confused about the necessity of using Corona vs using log4j
In our new OSGi-based project, we need to pick a logging framework. We do
not care about abstracting it behind an interface that would allow us to
swap it later on. We can stick to the library will will choose to use. We
are leaning toward log4j.
My confusion is related to usage of the log4j API in the code. We have
some common class libraries that are coded with zero dependancies on OSGi.
They are packaged in an OSGi bundles afterward. Thus, they cannot use (nor
depend on) the OSGi log service interfaces.
How does this fit with Corona? Does the decision to use Corana implies
that all logging done by all bundles should know about the interfaces to
I would like to allow the use of log4j directly without having to lookup
for the OSGi log service. I do not mind creating a dependancy on a log4j
OSGi bundle, but in the code, I still want to simply do this:
Is this possible? Will direct access to the log4j static instance somehow
hook into the corona bundle?
|Re: Corona vs log4j direct access [message #1779 is a reply to message #1764]
||Mon, 02 October 2006 10:11
| Dennis O'Flynn
Registered: July 2009
Corona is leveraging OSGi's logging service to post all logging events. |
This will allow it use the native implementations of the OSGi logging
service and keep our logging independent upon any 3rd party logging tool.
Corona does deploy an OSGi bundle that provides an event handler to OSGi log
events. This bundle will use log4j to provide persistence of log events.
"Claude" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Oups... I think this was posted to the wrong group.
> Now that I look further, I am not sure this was the wrong group to post
> this after all... Is corona-logging part of this group?
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01788 seconds