On 11/10/2013 09:46 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On 10 Nov 2013, at 21:24, henrib wrote: > >> Would you share why ? I'm sure it would be beneficial to others >> (including >> the commons logging community). > > Sorry I was short in my reply because I mentioned this a few times > already. Didn't find the mails, so here we go: > > As you probably know, I have an interest in logging in general. > > Commons Logging doesn't support modern logging features. If you compare > it to the Log4j2 API > or to slf4j its just outdated. That said, people are already having a > lot of problems with their > logging dependencies. It's definitely not nice to have commons-logging > in path, just because OGNL uses it. > From all the log4j talks I gave recently there were zero people using > commons-logging. For me it is dead. > And I certainly don't recommend anybody to use it. > > Ok, lets say you have an interest in fixing Commons-Logging and > implement modern API features. > > Why wouldn't you spend the time in Log4j2s API? It serves the same > purpose, just with a better API. It's already there. Log4j2 users can > use different logging implementations under the hood, if they like. Now > why should there be another logging facade which needs a *lot* of work? > > Before the small maintenance release this year there was a 5 yrs break. > Logging went on. Commons Logging did not. It's too late. Even if Commons > would put a lot of effort I doubt anybody would accept it.
The reason I made these small maintenance releases was simply due to the fact that there was a critical bug which lead to various deadlock reports by users, e.g. also on jenkins instances, which I thought was really worth a fix let alone for the reputation of the commons project. > Now we probably need some logging at OGNL. Do I want that outdated, > irregulary maintained Commons Logging which seems to be used only at > Tomcat? Mark explained the reasons why commons logging is still used by tomcat and I believe these are very valid, in this very specific case. The rest of the java world is probably better off using log4j, slf4j or whatever is currently en vogue. > No absolutely not. > > Instead I am thinking commons logging implementation should stop. We > will not win the fight against slf4j anymore. The only way out is > unbelievable big marketing effort for the log4j2 api OR a new logging jsr. I also think that commons-logging should be officially declared dead as there are way better alternatives out there, and there is no community behind logging anymore. Thomas > E-mail went longer than thought, sorry. Hope you understand a bit better > why I can't support commons-logging going into OGNL. If any more > questions please shout. > > Cheers > Christian > > > > > >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/OGNL-Make-use-of-logging-tp4653577p4656667.html >> >> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > --- > http://www.grobmeier.de > @grobmeier > GPG: 0xA5CC90DB > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
