commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
Date Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:21:13 GMT
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2009, at 6:20 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I'd be against SLF4J. Additionally I also prefer commons-
>>> logging
>>> compared to j.u.l.
>>>
>> Why would you be against SLF4J? I assume that means if I changed it to
>> use SLF4J you would vote -1 on the code commit?  Does that apply to
>> any commons project?
>
> the point is, what do we gain by a change to SLF4J? For simple components
> like the ones in Apache Commons it is enough to have one logging facade.
> There was a major effort to resolve any problem with CL 1.1.1.  Most of its
> bad reputation was a result of Tomcat using CL itself. Tomcat is using JUL
> now and I really bet SLF4J would suffer from the same problems if used as
> base of a JEE server. Additionally, since you can use SLF4J as direct
> replacement, every user is free to do so.
>
<snip/>

Theres also the sense of communal responsibility for individual
components whereby IMO having multiple facades used at Commons just
makes for a bigger overall hairiness quotient. Most of Commons uses
CL, if [configuration] moves chances still are that applications will
depend on CL by other means (many of [configuration]'s dependencies
require CL for example). And for those who really want SLF4J, there is
the now-misnamed jcl-over-slf4j.

-Rahul

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


Mime
View raw message