One thing that is a hassle to me with modularized projects, even
slf4j, is that you end up with a bunch of tiny jars. IOW & IMO: a
mess. Personally, I want one jar to rule them all. If I want to switch
logging implementer or a client wants another impl I have to fiddle
with my builds and explain what each jar does. It's a hassle.

Gary

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote:
> At some stage I started to refactor commons logging into a multi
> module maven project and got rid of the discovery part. So you would
> have the commons-logging-api jar plus exactly one of the
> implementation bridges. So you pick the logging target by putting the
> correct bridge into your classpath. Similar to slf4j.
>
> Didn't think there is still interest in commons logging. Not sure I
> still have the code. I lost interest after yet another logging
> discussion :) ...but it shouldn't be hard to re-create. Not sure there
> is still enough interest in this.
>
>>>> Seems to me you should focus on making Log4J the impl
>>>> excellent
>
> That sounds like work ;)
>
>> Unfortunately, SLF4J and Logback are run under the BDFL model, not a 
>> collaboration as is done at the ASF.
>
> Which is one of the reasons I have always been very reluctant to use it.
>
> cheers,
> Torsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to