Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Russell E Glaue wrote:
The GBean is a Geronimo construct, however if Geronimo does not bundle the Logback library in with it, then it seems ridiculous to include the GBean in Geronimo which depends on an external library not available in the Geronimo distro.
Instead it makes more since to put it in the Logback distro.
Logback implements the Jetty RequestLog, as RequestLogImpl. This implementation is in the Logback distro, not Jetty. Jetty does not incorporate Logback, so it would seem funny to give the implementation to Jetty unless they also agree to accept the Logback libraries into the distribution.
On the other hand, if we implement a log4j version of RequestLog, that should go into the Jetty namespace, and not the Log4j namespace, as Log4j is distributed with Jetty.
Overall, I agree with you. It would seem logical that the RequestLogImpl (of Logack) be distributed as part of Jetty, and the GBean wrapper for it distributed with Geronimo, but if Jetty and Geronimo do not bundle the Logback library, I do not see that as making sense.
I thought that you were interested in providing access-log functionality for a widely-deployed application in the enterprise/institution where you work. Why is it so important in which project your GBean extension lives? Put differently, why do wish to redistribute the GBean extension?
Why would I not contribute it back? I have a commitment to see Geronimo prosper. I think it needs an enterprise capable logging mechanism. Plus at least one other person has responded that they are also interested in it. Once it is in the code, the community supports it, and it is a part of the default installations which our developers will all be using. Makes it easier for us manage. Our environment is a 40-server Geronimo farm. With over 30 web sites, and over 50 web applications. The less I have to manage, the better.
-RG