commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:03:11 GMT
Ralph Goers schrieb:
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Ralph Goers schrieb:
>>> I just noticed that this was changed from commons.logging.  I'm very 
>>> strongly opposed to using j.u.l. I much prefer a logging abstraction. 
>>> While I'm not in love with commons-logging and would prefer SLF4J, 
>>> using commons-logging is better than using j.u.l directly. As I said, 
>>> if there is some reason for moving away from commons-logging I'd be 
>>> happy to do the work to migrate to SLF4J.
>>> Ralph
>> This change was made by Emmanuel, IIRC for the reason of getting rid 
>> of a dependency. Personally I was not too happy with this change 
>> either. IMHO libraries should use logging facades rather than forcing 
>> applications to use specific logging tools. So we seem to agree in 
>> this point.
>> About the abstraction to use I am a bit indifferent. There is this 
>> point of eating our own dog food (i.e. commons-logging). But if you 
>> prefer SLF4J (I haven't used it myself), I am not opposed to moving to 
>> it.
> Glad to hear that we are on the same page.
> If we continue to use commons-logging I would want to add a bunch of 
> enhancements to it that SLF4J already has. I suspect that this would 
> require a new branch of commons logging and I'd probably want the 
> minimum version to be Java 5. Since I'm only one guy and stretched very 
> thin I'm not sure when I could get to that. But I really would like to.
There should be a couple of people around here who are interested in 
commons-logging. So it may make sense to start a new thread to discuss 
the enhancements you have in mind. Maybe that gives some momentum to 
this component.


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

View raw message