commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Bourg <>
Subject Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:53:51 GMT
+1 as well. That's the path I advocated for Configuration 2.0, combined 
with the log4j bridge from Paul Smith [1]

Maybe we should stop spending our energy on alternative logging 
frameworks and try to improve the standard one in the JDK instead. I 
have been told that Java was open source now, so let's contribute !

Emmanuel Bourg


Le 07/08/2011 10:31, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gary Gregory<>  wrote:
>> Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging].
> If we really have to reconsider this stuff, then I'd propose to
> a) Use java.util.logging, because it doesn't require any additional
> dependencies and is guaranteed to work anywhere.
> b) Carefully document how to bridge jul to log4j, because that's
> exactly what's required in almost any application container I am aware
> of. (The exception being Tomcat, which uses jul anyways.)
> c) If the slf4j fans insist, add similar documentation for bridging
> jul to slf4j.
> Jochen

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

View raw message