On Apr 14, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
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.
Valid points. The main issue I have with Commons Logging is just that
it is too minimal. But that can easily be addressed. But I do have a
couple of comments.
1. The code was already changed from using Commons Logging as it does
in trunk to use java.util.logging. Both Oliver and I have stated that
we dislike that and want to change it to a facade. So it isn't a
matter of changing it versus leaving it alone.
2. SLF4J isn't a "direct" replacement for Commons Logging. The APIs
aren't exactly the same.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
