Hi Thomas,
On 09/25/2015 08:54 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi Ole,
for a start, I think you are asking the wrong question.
First of all we need to agree that we want to add some kind of logging
facility to CM.
Well it has to be SLF4J because that's the one I'm most familiar with :). We
did discuss having observers that can listen in on increment events that
algorithms publish. This would provide a dependency free method for doing so
with one drawback. Now everyone that wants the algorithm to log has to
implement logging.
If the outcome is positive, there are a handful of alternatives, some of
them more viable than slf4j in the context of CM (e.g. JUL or
commons-logging).
Would you be upset if it was SLF4J? This is minor, but I like the @SLF4J
annotation that Lombok provides.
btw. the same discussion has been done for other commons components as
well, and the result usually was: do not add logging
I think for the reason that commons should not introduce transitive
dependencies? This has been solved fairly well (Below).
Cheers,
- Ole
Thomas
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ole Ersoy <ole.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
We have been discussing various ways to view what's happening internally
with algorithms, and the topic of including SLF4J has come up. I know that
this was discussed earlier and it was decided that CM is a low level
dependency, therefore it should minimize the transitive dependencies that
it introduces. The Java community has adopted many means of dealing with
potential logging conflicts, so I'm requesting that we use SLF4J for
logging.
I know that JBoss introduced its own logging system, and this made me a
bit nervous about this suggestion, so I looked up strategies for switching
their logger out with SLF4J:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14733369/force-jboss-logging-to-use-of-slf4j
The general process I go through when working with many dependencies that
might use commons-logging instead of SLF4J looks something like this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8921382/maven-slf4j-version-conflict-when-using-two-different-dependencies-that-requi
With JDK9 individual modules can define their own isolated set of
dependencies. At this point the fix should be a permanent. If someone has
has a very intricate scenario that we have not yet seen, they could use
(And probably should use) OSGi to isolate dependencies.
WDYT?
Cheers,
- Ole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
