commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Math] Utilitzation of SLF4J?
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:03:44 GMT
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?


Gilles

> Thomas
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> 
> 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:
>>
>> 
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14733369/force-jboss-logging-to-use-of-slf4j
>>
>> The general process I go through when working with many dependencies 
>> that
>> might use commons-logging instead of SLF4J looks something like 
>> this:
>>
>> 
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8921382/maven-slf4j-version-conflict-when-using-two-different-dependencies-that-requi
>>
>> 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: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message