Ralph Goers schrieb:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
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.
Glad to hear that we are on the same page.
If we continue to use commons-logging I would want to add a bunch of
enhancements to it that SLF4J already has. I suspect that this would
require a new branch of commons logging and I'd probably want the
minimum version to be Java 5. Since I'm only one guy and stretched very
thin I'm not sure when I could get to that. But I really would like to.
There should be a couple of people around here who are interested in
commons-logging. So it may make sense to start a new thread to discuss
the enhancements you have in mind. Maybe that gives some momentum to
this component.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
