Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABDC27CC1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6151 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2011 20:08:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 5534 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2011 20:08:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 5206 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jul 2011 20:08:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:08:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.171] (HELO mail-gy0-f171.google.com) (209.85.160.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:08:29 +0000 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so2366119gyh.30 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=S3kHxBg+MWNKDrKmij4XUbJwGNgernw2ECcWaEvC9eo=; b=v3PagseFpXy4Qw4sDVeLhGGGiSX1CRIEbF1LHO5PPdbxBc7GUwVdKbZ1chim1bW0hM K7DEOg3f4mCqQkG/oSk3Ct/fVizpPtBVkfRXekvwDugFJoDZkGnNSO8iiEgEDLU8iOqT kDWu3iWU53ytLCvjqbk2HVV7FWh2P9ylm7i3w= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.113.4 with SMTP id l4mr124235ybc.275.1311883688362; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com Received: by 10.150.92.3 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:08:08 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qZ9pLdHGMcdjriMrcv2Pjp3QvjA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j From: Simone Tripodi To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 hahahaha :D I asked because there's one user that proposed a [chain] evolution, and one of suggested improvements is migrating over slf4j - I (wrongly, maybe) suggested to keep [logging] because here at commons we continue using it but, as said, I maybe reported a wrong fact. Do we encourage such kind of migrations or we are more conservative? Many thanks in advance, all the best!!! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Personally I'm happy for commons-logging to die. :) > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi > wrote: >> Hi all guys, >> I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or >> somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding >> [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j... >> Did I just get crazy or someone can point me to the right direction please? :) >> Many thanks in advance, all the best!!! >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org