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.
Actually I'd be against SLF4J. Additionally I also prefer commons-logging compared to j.u.l. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
