# lets clean up logging

**URL:** <https://talk.openmrs.org/t/lets-clean-up-logging/10552>\
**Category:** Development\
**Tags:** codequality, logging\
**Created:** [March 15, 2017, 7:31am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/lets-clean-up-logging/10552 "2017-03-15T07:31:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mogoodrich/32/3324_2.png) [@mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mogoodrich)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/lets-clean-up-logging/10552/4 "2017-03-15T13:22:03Z")

</div>

Ah, it looks like you are already thinking about module issues in the other thread that I’m just reading now…

> [@openmrs-core: replace log4j 1 which is EOL](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-core-replace-log4j-1-which-is-eol/10555/6):
>
> The 2.1.0 version is closed for major changes after alpha release so it would have to go in 2.2.0. @teleivo, I’d verify if the bridge mentioned at [https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.0/log4j-1.2-api/](https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.0/log4j-1.2-api/) works for us since as I understand it doesn’t require config changes. It would be great to use this opportunity to rethink how modules configure logging. Including log4j.xml is a bad practice as it may mess up/overwrite the global configuration and it introduces a dependency on the log4j version as…

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/lets-clean-up-logging/10552)._