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
