On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Vandahl <t...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03.09.17 20:05, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Would that not duplicate what logging facades (like log4j-api) already > > provide? > > You mean like commons-logging? Yeah, I understand that's not what is > required here. Otherwise it could stay as it is. I believe that > especially a caching layer should be as light-weight as possible and not > force people to use a certain log library. That's what ALL libraries state, but IRL you need to code for logging, and when you want to debug/trace/audit, then you want the best. My bias is Log4j since I contribute actively there. When I mean the best, I also mean access to features like markers at the facade level. On the many projects I've seen a logging facade, the facade _eventually_ ends up mirroring the underlying default API, whatever that is. So we end up ripping it out in favor of coding to the facade. > That's why JCS only depends > on commons-logging as this seemed to be a good choice at the time. > At the time, yes. But today, the Log4j facade API is much richer IMO. Gary > > Bye, Thomas. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
