commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <>
Subject Re: [Math] Utilitzation of SLF4J?
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:54:14 GMT
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

btw. the same discussion has been done for other commons components as
well, and the result usually was: do not add logging


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.
> Cheers,
> - Ole
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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