commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [crypto] Logging dependency
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2016 10:51:43 GMT
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.

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