On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:41 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote at Dienstag, 21. April 2009 01:03:
FWIW - I subscribe to this list so I saw the message but have not
participated in the discussion.
Actually it would be nice if people would report problems in first
place.
This just adds to my concern with respect to what to do with commons
logging.
As I said earlier, choosing SLF4J in a solution might be
appropriate, but
not for small components that should be used everywhere. Pluto will
have to
deal with a lot of components using CL and must adjust dependencies,
but
that's their choice. And with those components using CL they
actually have
the choice - this is for me the important part.
I don't understand your reply. What is it that you think is so
different between SLF4J and Commons Logging? SLF4J is just as
appropriate to use with small components as Commosn Logging is. They
are both adapters that require you to choose a logging implementation.
They both allow the implementation to be chosen when you package your
application - without recompliling anything.
So why do you think Commons Logging gives you more choices than SLF4J
does?
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
