--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> From: Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de>
> Subject: Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
> To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 2:03 PM
> 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.
>
Is there any point in turning [logging] into me-too-slf4j? If we can agree
that slf4j's API is preferable to that of [logging] in its current form, why
don't we EOL [logging] and bless the compatibly-licensed slf4j for future
development? No slight to those who have worked on [logging] in the past, but
if their interests have moved on while Ceki continues to focus on logging, why
not simply leave the domain to him? There is an established path for interop,
so this shouldn't keep anybody up at night IMHO. If we were interested in
having [logging]'s API differ significantly from that of slf4j it'd be a
different story, but this simply sounds like NIH, which is not what I think the
ASF is about.
-Matt
> Oliver
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
