cayenne-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan José Gil <mat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cayenne library changes log level in struts2
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:12:45 GMT
I've been thinking to propose this change to slf4j since... since... since
I'vediscovere slf4j :P

I don't have any problem to do it :)


2013/12/3 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hope this was rethoric and you don't consider my emails trollish?
> > Thats not the intention. I am involved in Apache Commons and in Apache
> > Logging and
> > logging is some kind of a natural interest. If you feel that my mails
> > are trolling this list, let me know and I stop my blabber.
>
> Troll was probably too strong a word.  I did add a ":)" after it.
>
>
> >> If Cayenne were to log directly to the log4j api, that would force all
> >> of our end-users to use log4j, at least to the point to reconfigured
> >> log4j to log to something else.
> >
> > Now you force them to have commons-logging which almost nobody else uses.
> >
> > Furthermore you force users to exclude the commons-logging.jar manually
> > when they want to drive anything over slf4j.
> >
> > This would be the case with slf4j/log4j2 too - but it is more likely that
> > those
> > are used in real life projects rather than commons-logging. Esp slf4j of
> > course,
> > log4j2 has not spread so far.
>
> Excluding (or just not including it to start with) isn't that big a
> deal.  I have real life projects.  I use slf4j in most of them, with
> the commons logging bridge.   I haven't had any problems doing it this
> way.   Other than some toy personal projects, I don't think I work on
> any project that uses commons logging directly.
>
>
> > If you care about the bad performance of JCL:
> > then you need to exclude commons-logging.
>
> Again, we are not saying to use JCL.  We are saying to use the JCL
> bridge of your choice.
>
>
> > If you would use slf4j, you can use jcl, log4j1, log4j2, logback even jul
> > (with some performance problems).
> > If you use log4j2 you can use the same.
> >
> > If you use JCL you can use log4j1, log4j2, slf4j and logback. But no Jul.
>
> Well, I have one MyFaces project that uses JCL and JUL.  It's not
> pretty, but it's possible. The problems all lie on the JUL end of
> things, but unfortunately, MyFaces requires JUL at present, so
> everything is redirected to JUL (JCL -> SLF4J -> JUL, for example).
>
>
> > No, it misses lot of modern features in its API, like markers.
> > I wrote a blog post bout it if you are interested:
> > http://www.grobmeier.de/the-new-log4j-2-0-05122012.html
>
> I read that post a long time ago.   I haven't had a need for anything
> beyond what JCL offers for logging.  Markers could be a nice optional
> thing, but they're not a necessary thing.   Still, I wouldn't be
> opposed to switching to SLF4J if someone else wanted to do the work.
> I'd prefer that you push your JSR forward and we were able to use that
> :)
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message