| Corona vs log4j direct access [message #1747] |
Fri, 29 September 2006 14:10  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: claudemontpetit.gmail.com
Hi,
I am a little confused about the necessity of using Corona vs using log4j
directly.
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
produce log?
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:
org.apache.log4j.Logger.getLogger("my.logger");
Is this possible? Will direct access to the log4j static instance somehow
hook into the corona bundle?
--
Claude
|
|
|
|
| Re: Corona vs log4j direct access [message #1764 is a reply to message #1757] |
Fri, 29 September 2006 20:02  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: claudemontpetit.gmail.com
> 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 0.03454 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
