On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:52:26 -0700, Hasan Diwan wrote:
On 25 September 2015 at 16:47, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:30:33 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:28:48 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/25/15 7:03 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:54:14 +0200, 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.
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).
Could someone summarize why those alternatives were deemed "more
viable"?
btw. the same discussion has been done for other commons
components as
well, and the result usually was: do not add logging
What was the rationale?
Look at the archives. We have discussed this multiple times in
the
past in [math] and each time came to the conclusion that Thomas
succinctly states above. What has changed now?
We also discussed several times to stick with Java 5.
Fortunately, that has changed. [Although sticking with Java 7 is
still
a bad decision IMHO.]
As for logging, IIRC, the sole argument was "no dependency"
because
(IIRC) of the potential "JAR hell".
that's not correct. The decision to not include any dependencies
has
nothing to do with "JAR hell".
Although I can't find it now, I'm pretty sure that I more than once
got such an answer.
In order to prevent JAR hell, commons components strictly stick to
the
"Versioning guidelines" [1]
I can't see how it relates.
But if you mean that no JAR hell can emerge from using a logging
framework,
then that's good news.
The no-dependency rule is more related to the proposal of the
component,
see [2]
Thanks for the reminder; in that document, we read:
(1) Scope of the Package
[...]
5. Limited dependencies. No external dependencies beyond Commons
components and the JDK
So we are fine if use "Log4j 2" as kindly offered by Gary.
My long-standing mentioning of slf4j was only because of its
"weightlessness" (thanks to the no-op implementation of its API).
If "Log4j 2" has followed this path, good for everyone.
No objection, then?
I'm still not clear what log4j 2 adds -- most Apache java projects
seem to
use log4j 1.2, seems to work well. -- H
I can only answer about "slf4j" where the "f" stands for facade: it's
"only"
an API, with bridges to several logging frameworks (log4j, logback,
etc.).
The separation of concerns (API vs one of several implementations to
choose from)
allows the top-level application to uniformly configure logging or to
disable it
completely (if choosing the "no-op" implementation).
Hopefully, this flexibility has been included in "Log4j 2" (TBC by the
experts).
Regards,
Gilles
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
