I'm not a fan of this plan. Have you actually tried to "bridge" jul to anything? While it will work anywhere that doesn't imply it will work properly.
Ralph On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>wrote: > Hi all, > > >> > >> If we really have to reconsider this stuff, then I'd propose to > >> > >> a) Use java.util.logging, because it doesn't require any additional > >> dependencies and is guaranteed to work anywhere. > >> b) Carefully document how to bridge jul to log4j, because that's > >> exactly what's required in almost any application container I am aware > >> of. (The exception being Tomcat, which uses jul anyways.) > >> c) If the slf4j fans insist, add similar documentation for bridging > >> jul to slf4j. > > > > +1. I like this plan. > > > > +1 I like this plan too. it sounds *very* reasonable: unified, > standard (?) way to log, easy to bridge to everything needed. > can we ask more? > have a nice day, all the best!!! > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
