Hi Tim, I stand by what I said earlier in the thread: that it is counterproductive to make yet another change to our logging framework - even if it is a return to one we used before. slf4j-api is not immune to making breaking changes. I still argue that we could wrap the logger init so that we can avoid having logger init issues fail POI startup.
On Saturday 16 November 2024 at 15:12:14 GMT+1, Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote: Thank you, PJ, for leading this effort. I completely agree that we can't let log4j cause problems for us, and I like your proposal to wrap log4j. Is going back to slf4j off the table? On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:06 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > We've already migrated from our own POILogger that was disabled by default to > slf4j and then to log4j - over a relatively short period. Migrating again to > java.util.logging would seem to me to me to be pretty strange. I have to > admit that I have never come across anything that uses java.util.logging and > I tend to run scared of built-in Java features. slf4j and log4j are much more > prevalent in the apps and libs that I am familiar with. > > I really do not like log4j but I think we are sort of stuck with it. I would > still argue that we need to wrap it to protect our users from it going rogue. > > > > > > > On Thursday 14 November 2024 at 22:28:19 GMT+1, stanton fisque > <sfis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > would there be value in refactoring out log4j completely and just using JUL? > is POI actually leveraging any exotic features of log4j or is this a leftover > from the days before JUL existed? > > > Stanton Fisque > principal technologist > latticeware.com > portland, oregon > > > On Nov 14, 2024, at 12:44 PM, PJ Fanning <fannin...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > > wrote: > > > > I'm going to suggest that we create a new POI LogManager that wraps the > > log4j one. This would catch null loggers and log4j exceptions and replace > > them with a no-op logger instance. We can print to system.err to notify > > that we have done this. > > > > I don't think log4j issues should allowed to make POI fail completely. I'm > > afraid that we have to assume that log4j is not reliable. > > > > Reading > > * https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/3196 > > * https://lists.apache.org/thread/2fpkq93hvdz5ox8w6cqt7sbjrc0x66z6 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org
