commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [crypto] Logging dependency
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:19:25 GMT
There is a huge list of advantages to using log4j-api over slf4j-api
nowadays, plus I do prefer to use Apache dependencies in Apache projects
unless the competition is clearly better for the use case (like using Jetty
instead of Tomcat in Karaf due to OSGi support). Also, using log4j-api
works fine with logback as well, so it's not like it prevents people from
using slf4j bindings at runtime.

On 8 June 2016 at 05:51, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All:
> >
> > IMO. if [crypto] is to have a dependency on a logging framework, it
> should
> > be Log4j 2, not Commons Logging. Log4j 2 has an API module, which you can
> > pair with any number of implementations: Log4j's own Core, JUL, SLF4J,
> and
> > so on.
> >
> >
> I would prefer SLF4J, personally.  It is by far the most popular based on
> my experience with the libraries that I use.  This is assuming the
> component does use a logging framework.  Others have suggested that it does
> not.  I don't know that it really matters to me one way or the other, but I
> do know that in the past when I didn't have any logging when things went
> bump, it was hard to determine what to do to fix it.  Some folks keep JMX
> stats and the like to help and I suppose that's an option.
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

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