Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cayenne-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C7291091F for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:40:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50502 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2013 17:40:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-user-archive@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 50486 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2013 17:40:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 50475 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2013 17:40:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:40:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of grobmeier@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.52] (HELO mail-ee0-f52.google.com) (74.125.83.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:40:11 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id d17so1552774eek.11 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=zm9b4NTdW/hVjyNk1M5Vt8CeC3jitDg6Z2aG4ELoP4E=; b=pxFYX4A0K1cu1jI695iNh+FtbF+W4y3X/gd03sV7eJOWWEgmwXUB5jiEAw3cWzF1U+ NSYhtgrw43T+YUzwwrsnZPiHAeDu9joz/fko5pUPuphZp/uHv/vVK4YLM99iRIkyDrSz 8Ew5Y0JtgSAAlGC0NW1zZkvvmpQW3GHBRR9xtss5uLexu2dS8bD9/mc0hrgK2CSqrGbG xi4M/Gs7yJhSGmg1q44Slbh6F7aAo9znxT8t90IXSm+TRmsG78B7AP/MgnVaVp+N4htG FH8flVYNiCLazG4ZAcwpPM94Qp13C8zkRoD50SqN1knxM3BX7hl0IVTBxjRAQPtEG5xM fDiQ== X-Received: by 10.15.95.72 with SMTP id bc48mr7582117eeb.49.1386092391276; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.24] (p4FF9B2D9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.249.178.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b41sm61607987eef.16.2013.12.03.09.39.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:39:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Christian Grobmeier" To: user@cayenne.apache.org Subject: Re: cayenne library changes log level in struts2 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:39:48 +0100 Message-ID: <828C92DA-A1EB-4CB9-8A32-B4424D4CA4E9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <87B7E069-4E4A-4D45-BDC0-B1B5FA753756@gmail.com> <856BD870-2E11-4A12-8FF5-06C4200CAD1E@objectstyle.org> <047CCB6E-A97C-40EE-AE83-FA72B5434D9F@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.7.1r3836) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 3 Dec 2013, at 15:59, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Christian Grobmeier > wrote: >> With slf4j/log4j2 you can choose your logging api at your own will >> too. >> >> Personally I consider Commons Logging a risk and would not add it >> into my >> projects today. >> Its not well maintained and future developments of the other >> frameworks will >> most likely not look that much into Commons Logging. >> >> But well, I am biased on that. > > Yes, I'm very much aware that you are trolling and/or proselytizing as > the case may be :) But it's a good topic to revisit occasionally. 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. > 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. > However, as you've already pointed out, if we log against the commons > logging api, then no one even needs to use the actual commons logging > implementation. They can use the log4j2 bridge. They can use the > slf4j bridge. I don't know much about logback, but my guess is that > they have a bridge as well. If you care about the bad performance of JCL: http://slf4j.org/faq.html#why_new_project then you need to exclude commons-logging. 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. The difference is that logging framework vendors provide support for JCL, but JCL itself does not. If logging framework vendors decide to drop JCL support, its simply gone. JCL for me is definitely not the best solution, its one of the worst. > Commons logging as an logging implementation may not make much sense > today, but using the commons logging api provides the maximum > flexibility as far as I can tell. 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 However ASF is a do-ocracy. If you *would* consider a change, I might submit a patch. But this will take a while - i have promised a lot of these patches already :-) Cheers! --- http://www.grobmeier.de @grobmeier GPG: 0xA5CC90DB