[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[news.eclipse.technology.corona] Corona vs log4j direct access

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