Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of garydgregory@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPFNckhPMc5PG74OD1f0dRz45sYySd_xy_GAq3q7axYx7f6KpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAqLGLO9WsPU=_exMsKZkC9pJvPq=S8AnQjjg4_8v4=N7dOojQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPVuaYspFrdqa5diX2uNqd=3=eYiMfC5Tfr5470v6m_GeX6Mwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E37BC6E.3090201@apache.org>
	<CAPVuaYs2p_MQtNUOzJ5gNb16bKHmpf2-F3RJy7Y3P6+mh5mPAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACzrW9AteirG0X9cEeyo3Qo3niRwF1UNJeYxEyNzqPcbuFYX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACZkXPzaoyVtmoYXLNvyunWr_zD-kYBX8N0qdUv4gbtoSCEtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8HOZL8T8yX3fCgQi78uu0d8Wqb1ypqe9eArQSRE=4m9sHoNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E3E617C.60208@apache.org>
	<CAAqLGLPO8SRaKYMBX=xWwU5xy3j0Mq7yRaCNVvT8RgMsUDd9LA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEk_X4ZW7sx+uATx20Hk1VhB1mM6e82bDxTw72RVAvysJx3hmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E403318.5060504@fastmail.fm>
	<CABLGb9yVLEc6u=skQg+DUifUNXCj8WiXb8i0-z_PorMoU9hxiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9L6G1nbNY3kYF++tGmEcqGA5=sNCDXOpuducjavEYO+00oAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E403DCF.6070609@fastmail.fm>
	<CALy1bpeyMdGb5E3zoNrZ18_3ZLjD0wq_NjHvdFA=J2vJeWurYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E40515E.103@fastmail.fm>
	<CALy1bpfUzESh5bQfVdYbWC319O-Y97ASkZKc0kPnqP0wz-ie5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALznzY5G5bY+4nZV31hg0d3km-t7g2KWYvfjX3WK=BdLJOHOkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPFNckhPMc5PG74OD1f0dRz45sYySd_xy_GAq3q7axYx7f6KpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:34:58 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CACZkXPzrhVN+7bMPTYtBZygSjwrXjqEXxYG-BgBXQcu9xwYZWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j
From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>>> Another option is to try to work with Ceki to address some of the
>>> concerns of the commons community with regards to using slf4j.
>>>
>>> * There is a hassle with too many jars for dependencies with slf4j.
>>> * Every time Ceki goes on vacation everything stops.
>>> * Some have a preference for Apache driven projects.
>>> * Figuring out the dependencies that are needed can be difficult.
>>
>> Another option would be to try to convince Ceki to move his project to
>> the ASF? =C2=A0He is an ASF member, right? =C2=A0What were his concerns =
about
>> the ASF that made him start his project elsewhere?
>
> Ceki is an ASF member and even a Logging PMC.
> You can read most about his concerns on his blog, for example:
> http://ceki.blogspot.com/2010/05/forces-and-vulnerabilites-of-apache.html
> http://ceki.blogspot.com/2010/05/committocracy-as-alternative-for.html
>
> He seems to be very opposed to the ASF model; there was much bad
> feelings in the "log4j case" before I started with logging and
> therefore I doubt that Ceki is willing to go back to the ASF. At least
> his blogposts reflect that he is not satisfied with the "Apache Way"
> itself instead of personal trouble, which we might be able to solve.
> Ceki is reading this list, so maybe he wants to elaborate a bit more.
>
> The logback project is not satisfying me as a developer. I am at the
> ASF because I like the way it is. I like the software. And of course I
> like the way the work is done here and finally I like the license.
>
> logback/slf4j is going another way. It does not have the license, and
> holidays seem to be very important to the project.
>
> We, the ASF, have really good software in our repositories. We have
> very competent people around. Why do we discuss to move to
> slf4j/logback - now? The last time we discussed this there was less
> activity on logging. Now there is activity on the logging project at
> apache. There is Ralph and some other people doing lots of work for
> log4j2.
> We have learned there are some people who want commons-logging. We
> have learned in Tomcat are some people who created classloader
> workarounds and know about the case and could help with it.
>
> It feels wrong to me to move away to slf4j/logback with Commons at
> this point of time. We would kill the new growing dynamics of logging.
> Instead we should use the new interest and try to work together on the
> new log4j/commons-logging. Over at logging we welcome new fresh blood.
>
> After all, even log4j 1.2.x is not bad software. I use it daily; i
> have not missed the features of logback (parametrized messages,
> Markers etc.) so far. I put log4j in my class path, copy over one of
> my fave configuration, ready. No need to waste any more time to this.
> log4j is still good and at the moment I don't see a reason to move on.
>
> In the commons-logging case, if the commons-* projects stop using
> commons-logging, then commons-logging feels pretty dead.
>
> So my preference is:
>
> - Help Ralph to make log4j 2.0 become truth
> - Update commons-logging, make it work with log4j 2.0
> - Try to make log4j 2.0 become compatible with slf4j

+1

>
> If one of you is interested in helping with log4j, please subscribe to
> log4j-dev@logging.apache.org

Done.

Nice message Christian.

Gary

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


--=20
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

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