From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-04-02 22:33:43
|
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Marc Palmer wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:49:53 -0500, Eric B. Ridge <eb...@tc...> wrote: > >> Hell, should we just rip out our log stuff and replace it with Log4J? >> I bet this would make a lot of folks happy... I've never used Log4J >> but have heard it's just great and have considered using it here at >> TCDI... I wouldn't mind hooking it into WebMacro first, mainly to >> find out if it sucks or not. > > Well... I don't think we should tie WM to another non-JDK API. I > haven't used Log4J and we have our own logging apis... abstracted so > we can use any underlying log transport - much like WM but simpler. Very true. But there's an advantage of not needing to maintain the code... > If anything, we should make it use the JDK 1.4 logging api... but that > has obvious bad side-effects! yeah. :( Dunno 'bout joo, but it'll be awhile before we (tcdi) moves to 1.4. Hell, just recently got 1.4.1 support on my Mac. Damn Apple. eric >>> I can create a test case if anybody wants to take a look at this. >> >> sure. I'll be glad to investigate if you'll make a test. > > As per my post, I've got a feeling this is linked to multiple WM > instances. I have a feeling some log target stuff is getting confused > between WM instances. > > I will test this shortly... I just need to add another module to my > webapp config and if I get 3 copies of all log entries... then we know > I'm right :) > > Marc > |