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 D04B37894 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:07:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64873 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2011 11:07:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 64253 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2011 11:07:20 -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 64240 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2011 11:07:18 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:07:18 +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 (nike.apache.org: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.171] (HELO mail-yx0-f171.google.com) (209.85.213.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:07:11 +0000 Received: by yxk38 with SMTP id 38so1731181yxk.30 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:06:50 -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=vryFT7oRzFREN77Agfi5Uin2CqlRMUNgoOZQlJKYv8U=; b=TuxUQrU+7nRpZ8Bbj1H+Ro6IivNEgH5FadcfSf9deU5hp+nXTntC6xMbEZnvrx5OcD Aw19LSIUQI+p4/8OWrdYbtLHlK93j3ntrHcT2ZyGJcJIg+v2AjdgeTOEsgfsPboa0y1C XgCcgty+EWYT3hTJO8Tffhhv2sEgrbAQOEI38= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.113.4 with SMTP id l4mr3055348ybc.275.1312542410422; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com Received: by 10.150.147.14 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E37BC6E.3090201@apache.org> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:06:50 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: K7lXt1iIQgRKYsduZ2xK9e-HXSA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j From: Simone Tripodi To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Well said Hen, big +1 :) > > B) If you are an app, use log4j. or logback, depending on the cases, IMHO > Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Paul Benedict 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org