commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [Math] Utilitzation of SLF4J?
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:09:56 GMT
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:28:48 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/25/15 7:03 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:54:14 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> Hi Ole,
>>> for a start, I think you are asking the wrong question.
>>> First of all we need to agree that we want to add some kind of
>>> logging
>>> facility to CM.
>>> If the outcome is positive, there are a handful of alternatives,
>>> some of
>>> them more viable than slf4j in the context of CM (e.g. JUL or
>>> commons-logging).
>> Could someone summarize why those alternatives were deemed "more
>> viable"?
>>> btw. the same discussion has been done for other commons
>>> components as
>>> well, and the result usually was: do not add logging
>> What was the rationale?
> Look at the archives.  We have discussed this multiple times in the
> past in [math] and each time came to the conclusion that Thomas
> succinctly states above.  What has changed now?

We also discussed several times to stick with Java 5.
Fortunately, that has changed. [Although sticking with Java 7 is still
a bad decision IMHO.]

As for logging, IIRC, the sole argument was "no dependency" because
(IIRC) of the potential "JAR hell".

If there are now well-formed answers proving that the fear was
unfounded, that is also a change.

IMO, logging is quite important for any "non-obvious" code.[1]
[I'm again stating that, in that respect, CM is not like the other
"Commmons" components.]

Several times, I've been obliged to create a modified version of CM
to introduce "print" statements (poor man's logging!) in order to
figure out why my code did not do what it was supposed to.
It also makes a code easier to debug while developing or modifying it
(without resorting to poor man's logging, then deleting the "print",
then reinstating them, then deleting them again, ad nauseam).


[1] No quality or complexity judgment implied.

> Phil
>> Gilles
>>> Thomas
>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ole Ersoy <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> We have been discussing various ways to view what's happening
>>>> internally
>>>> with algorithms, and the topic of including SLF4J has come up.
>>>> I know that
>>>> this was discussed earlier and it was decided that CM is a low
>>>> level
>>>> dependency, therefore it should minimize the transitive
>>>> dependencies that
>>>> it introduces.  The Java community has adopted many means of
>>>> dealing with
>>>> potential logging conflicts, so I'm requesting that we use SLF4J
>>>> for
>>>> logging.
>>>> I know that JBoss introduced its own logging system, and this
>>>> made me a
>>>> bit nervous about this suggestion, so I looked up strategies for
>>>> switching
>>>> their logger out with SLF4J:
>>>> The general process I go through when working with many
>>>> dependencies that
>>>> might use commons-logging instead of SLF4J looks something like
>>>> this:
>>>> With JDK9 individual modules can define their own isolated set of
>>>> dependencies.  At this point the fix should be a permanent.  If
>>>> someone has
>>>> has a very intricate scenario that we have not yet seen, they
>>>> could use
>>>> (And probably should use) OSGi to isolate dependencies.
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> - Ole

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

View raw message