commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
Date Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:29:12 GMT

On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:

>> 2. SLF4J isn't a "direct" replacement for Commons Logging. The APIs
>> aren't exactly the same.
> I thought jcl-over-slf4j (or so) is used for that.

Yes - but you lose a lot of the benefits that SLF4J has when you do  
> My main question stays: What does SLF4J offer that we have to use  
> now for
> CC? The last time I've checked (well, it must have been CC 1.3 or so),
> logging was used only in one or two places at all anyway.

CC does far too little logging. The code I develop at work uses  
SLF4J's XLogger to log the major entry and exits so I can easily  
diagnose problems by watching the method flow along with the input  
parameters and return values. You don't do this with commons logging  
because filtering out the noise is somewhat more difficult and doing

static final String methodName = "doSomething";
if (logger.isTracedEnabled())
    logger.trace("Entering method" + methodName + ", parm=" + parm);

is lots more work than just doing


I'd be happy to generate some trace logs that show you what this looks  
like, but you can also see an example by looking at


> And Rahul's argument about some consistency between the commons  
> component is
> also valid, especially now with CC depending (optionally) on VFS ...

On this I totally agree.  But to me the question is, "Is it worth it  
to enhance commons logging to do what SLF4J already does?"


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message