On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:01 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the SLF4J website specifically says it is not necessary to
recompile:
http://www.slf4j.org/manual.html#swapping
i.e. SLF4J chooses the logging implementation based in which logging
implementation it finds on the classpath; there must be only one
such.
I'm not saying SLF4J is better or worse than CL, but they both allow
the implementation to be configured without recompilation.
Thanks, that means that I'll drawback from this discussion. I'd only
like to note that I'd clearly prefer, if we all could stick to a
single logging system, regardless what.
Thanks. But I'd really like to get back to what this topic was meant
to be about.
Commons currently uses Commons Logging. It is a very minimal API (too
minimal if you ask me) and apparently still has some issues with how
it binds to its implementation.
The basic question is, what is next for Commons Logging? Is there any
point in enhancing it to emulate SLF4J? Should it just stay more or
less as it is while it slowly loses its customer base?
I don't think there is much point in discussing what logging system
Commons projects should use in the future without answering this.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
