commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Speirs <bill.spe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:23:12 GMT
IMO, saying "Don't do logging in a library" seems like a bad rule.

The HTTPComponents client has logging and it has been VERY helpful to be
able to turn on debug logging and see what requests and responses are going
over the wire. Yes, I could fire up Wireshark and get the same info, but
turning on logging is so much easier... I only wish they had this for the
HttpCore stuff.

Why do you suggest no logging for libraries?

Bill-

On Aug 5, 2011 2:19 AM, "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
wrote:
>>> I prefer Apache driven projects when possible. If LOG4J2 takes off,
>>> feature requests would be implemented quicker, I hope.
>>
>> I like Log4J just fine thank you very much :)
>>
>> I'm looking forward to 2.0.
>
> That's generally where I am thought-wise.
>
> A) If you're a generic reusble library; don't do logging if you can help
it.
> B) If you are an app, use log4j.
> C) If you truly need a bridge, use SLF4j.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message