Delivered-To: cgu@qos.ch
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:00:32 -0700
Subject: FW: Log4J Vote
From: Jon Stevens <jon@latchkey.com>


------ Forwarded Message
From: Graham Hamilton <kgh@eng.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:07:40 -0700
To: Jon Stevens <jon@latchkey.com>
Subject: Re: Log4J Vote

Jon,

Thanks for your interest in the logging APIs.

As Ceki noted, IBM has been a very active participant in the
JSR-047 logging JSR.  When the logging JSR was initiated in
January 2000, IBM had both the log4j work at IBM research and
the JLog work at IBM Tivoli.  The Tivoli work built on IBM's
earlier product logging experience and included features like
internationalization that were then not present in log4j.
IBM's involvement in JSR-047 was focused on their JLog
experience which had seen a lot of use in IBM products.

However, Ceki also provided useful input from log4j, and that
has influenced some parts of the logging APIs.

In designing the APIs we've tried to draw from numerous
sources and we've tried to support a wide set of requirements.

It's inevitable that when there is a new standardization
effort it will make some different choices from some of
the existing APIs.  We went through a similar experience
with JDBC.  It build on a bunch of earlier work, but it
wasn't exactly like any of them.  Unfortunately we delayed
adding a JDK logging API for too long, and I think it
is important that we resolve that in Merlin.

Unfortunately we are quite late in the Merlin cycle and
we can't really accommodate major API changes at this point.
However, I will be studying Ceki's comments carefully.

                                           thanks
                                               - Graham



------ End of Forwarded Message