Ralph Goers schrieb:
I just noticed that this was changed from commons.logging. I'm very
strongly opposed to using j.u.l. I much prefer a logging abstraction.
While I'm not in love with commons-logging and would prefer SLF4J, using
commons-logging is better than using j.u.l directly. As I said, if there
is some reason for moving away from commons-logging I'd be happy to do
the work to migrate to SLF4J.
Ralph
This change was made by Emmanuel, IIRC for the reason of getting rid of
a dependency. Personally I was not too happy with this change either.
IMHO libraries should use logging facades rather than forcing
applications to use specific logging tools. So we seem to agree in this
point.
About the abstraction to use I am a bit indifferent. There is this point
of eating our own dog food (i.e. commons-logging). But if you prefer
SLF4J (I haven't used it myself), I am not opposed to moving to it.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
