On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Raman Gupta <rocketra...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> Perhaps I'm missing something, but what exactly is wrong with simply >> using slf4j? It is an extremely simple, widely used library that >> provides out of the box hooks for many logging frameworks including >> log4j and logback, simple to configure (i.e. drop the appropriate jars >> in and thats it), and works out of the box in an OSGi environment? The >> only downside appears to be that it is not an Apache project. So what. > > The biggest issue I have with SLF4J is figuring out the dependencies > that I need. I really detest having an API jar and then an > implementation/bridge jar. I find that too annoying. >
In fairness, using a dependency manager with support for transitive dependencies you should only have to specify the implementation jar. In the case of slf4j you may have to provide multiple jars (impl + bridge X n logging frameworks in use throughout your application), however. Of course, log4j v2 will have to support this paradigm in some fashion or lose runtime "market share" due to slf4j's ability to cater to the "lowest common denominator." Matt > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
