commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:08:11 GMT
Antonio Petrelli wrote:

 > However in my experience SLF4J has a big drawback: when used in a
 > shared classloader (JBoss Portal anyone?) it is needed to have the
 > same stinky old version of SLF4J in all applications during compile
 > time, and the library should be excluded from the package.

Hello Antonio,

Since version 1.0 released about 5 years ago, all versions of SLF4J
are compile-time compatible. For example, you can compile code with
slf4j-api version 1.4.3 and run it just fine with any other version of
slf4j-api, including 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.4.x., 1.5.x and
1.6.x.

On the other hand, the version of slf4j binding that you select at
runtime needs to match the slf4j-api. For example, if you have
slf4j-api-1.6.1.jar on your classpath and you wish to use log4j, then
you need slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar on your class path,
slf4j-log4j12-1.4.3.jar will not work.

HTH,
-- 
QOS.ch, main sponsor of cal10n, logback and slf4j open source projects, 
is looking to hire talented software developers. For further details, 
see http://logback.qos.ch/job.html

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


Mime
View raw message