commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <skitch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [logging] SLF4J?
Date Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:45:55 GMT
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 00:17 -0500, Sandy McArthur wrote:
> On 3/9/06, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > So, have we missed the boat?
> >
> > http://www.slf4j.org
> >
> > Is SLF4J going to take over?  I do like the fact that it relies on the user
> > dropping the correct jar file in the classpath to choose the implementation
> > (sounds familiar).
> 
> I think 1.4 j.u.logging is going to take over eventually. As time
> passes people care less and less about older JVMs. The fact that j.u.l
> already available to the programmer without any extra effort and not
> an external dependency means a lot to people who don't prioritize
> their passions as: their god, their country, their logging api, and
> then their family. That said, inertia will keep clogging and log4j
> around for a good while.

There are good reasons to continue work on JCL regardless of the
existence of SLF4J, in particular the fact that there is a large volume
of code using the JCL API, but having problems with the current JCL
implementation.

What logging library people choose for their projects is then their
business as far as I am concerned. A "market share" is something
commercial operators need to worry about; all we need to concern
ourselves with is creating good code. JCL1.0.x has flaws but has
generally been a success. JCL1.1 is expected to fix a significant number
of those flaws. Ideas are being considered for a JCL2.x to fix the rest.

I also agree that j.u.logging will eventually be the standard API. It's
not a great design IMO but the fact that it's in the language core
counts for a lot. However that's likely to be at least 3 years in the
future even for container-like apps, and maybe 10 years for *all* uses
of java < 1.4 to disappear (esp. embedded systems).

For standalone applications, SLF4J is a fine solution. For use in
containers, I have some significant concerns about SLF4J. I may be wrong
but we'll soon see I guess (assuming SLF4J actually starts to get a
fraction of the use that JCL currently has). I believe that JCL 1.1 will
be pretty good for containers, and JCL2 even better.

But in the end, JCL will continue to improve as will SLF4J I expect, and
people can choose as they wish - until j.u.logging knocks both libs into
the dustbin of history.

Cheers,

Simon


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message