commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: commons-logging unsuited for cross-context webapplication invocation usage - migrating to slf4j?
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:40:39 GMT
John Bollinger wrote at Mittwoch, 22. April 2009 18:17:

> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> What is next for Commons Logging? Is there any point in enhancing it to
>> emulate SLF4J? Should it just stay more or less as it is while it slowly
>> loses its customer base?
> I think the most appropriate use case for Commons Logging always has been
> for small components intended to be reused in multiple environments, to
> adapt them to the appropriate logging system for each environment.  Some
> larger projects, such as Tomcat, use it for more generalized purposes, but
> I think that is a mistake.  Application projects (as opposed to
> components) should be encouraged to choose and use a low-level logging
> framework such as Log4J.  If CL has a way forward then it is through
> focusing on its use as an adapter instead of trying to position it as a
> general-purpose logging framework.
> Furthermore, it seems clear that the class loading issues CL has
> exhibited, though mitigated in recent releases, are probably going to
> continue to present problems for some CL 1.x uses for the foreseeable
> future.  (The irony of a convenience feature causing such widespread and
> tenacious trouble is not lost on me.)  My solution is to abandon the idea
> of auto-adaptation, or to at least discourage its use.  Therefore, I argue
> that CL should *not* attempt to evolve toward the SLF4J model, because
> that's just a different auto-adaptation approach, still likely to cause
> trouble.
> Instead, CL should focus technology-wise on making it as easy as possible
> to explicitly configure logging on both global and per-component bases. 
> That could mean careful evaluation of defaults, more or better
> configuration sources, and / or tools for creating and maintaining logging
> configurations.
> Following this strategy will mean that CL's customer base *does* continue
> to shrink for a while, because some projects are using it that shouldn't
> be.  It does not serve anyone well to try to keep people on CL when it's
> the wrong tool for the job.  On the other hand, I think this strategy can
> ultimately grow the customer base by shedding CL's image problem and
> providing a clearer message of when, why, and how to use it.

Thanks John, you summed this up much better than I could have done it.

- Jörg

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

View raw message