On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
2. SLF4J isn't a "direct" replacement for Commons Logging. The APIs
aren't exactly the same.
I thought jcl-over-slf4j (or so) is used for that.
Yes - but you lose a lot of the benefits that SLF4J has when you do
that.
My main question stays: What does SLF4J offer that we have to use
now for
CC? The last time I've checked (well, it must have been CC 1.3 or so),
logging was used only in one or two places at all anyway.
CC does far too little logging. The code I develop at work uses
SLF4J's XLogger to log the major entry and exits so I can easily
diagnose problems by watching the method flow along with the input
parameters and return values. You don't do this with commons logging
because filtering out the noise is somewhat more difficult and doing
static final String methodName = "doSomething";
if (logger.isTracedEnabled())
{
logger.trace("Entering method" + methodName + ", parm=" + parm);
}
is lots more work than just doing
logger.entry(parm);
I'd be happy to generate some trace logs that show you what this looks
like, but you can also see an example by looking at http://www.slf4j.org/extensions.html#extended_logger
.
And Rahul's argument about some consistency between the commons
component is
also valid, especially now with CC depending (optionally) on VFS ...
On this I totally agree. But to me the question is, "Is it worth it
to enhance commons logging to do what SLF4J already does?"
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
