On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Ralph, > > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> >> On Apr 11, 2009, at 6:20 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Actually I'd be against SLF4J. Additionally I also prefer commons- >>> logging >>> compared to j.u.l. >>> >> Why would you be against SLF4J? I assume that means if I changed it to >> use SLF4J you would vote -1 on the code commit? Does that apply to >> any commons project? > > the point is, what do we gain by a change to SLF4J? For simple components > like the ones in Apache Commons it is enough to have one logging facade. > There was a major effort to resolve any problem with CL 1.1.1. Most of its > bad reputation was a result of Tomcat using CL itself. Tomcat is using JUL > now and I really bet SLF4J would suffer from the same problems if used as > base of a JEE server. Additionally, since you can use SLF4J as direct > replacement, every user is free to do so. > <snip/>
Theres also the sense of communal responsibility for individual components whereby IMO having multiple facades used at Commons just makes for a bigger overall hairiness quotient. Most of Commons uses CL, if [configuration] moves chances still are that applications will depend on CL by other means (many of [configuration]'s dependencies require CL for example). And for those who really want SLF4J, there is the now-misnamed jcl-over-slf4j. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
