deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Allen <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Logging
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:16:53 GMT
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 18:25, Lincoln Baxter, III

> Funny, I've been meaning to mention this exact implementation but haven't
> had the time. Looks like you beat me to it! You designed it so it's
> probably better that way ;)
> However, I think I'd like to support the argument that using a 3rd party
> logging framework like SLF4J might be good for end-user-applications, but
> it is not good for us to use in the framework itself. If we do this, we
> just further perpetuate the logging conflict. I think what we did in
> Rewrite is an elegant solution to avoid this. [1]

Yep, that's essentially what I was saying. But you phrase it in a way that
sticks. If we use a specific logging framework, then whoops, we drop the
burden on the user of framework to work out. We don't want that to be the
first impression.

> Use Java logging as the default logging is usually good enough, then simply
> provide additional dependencies that are a drop-in integration with other
> logging frameworks.


> -1 to i18n and typesafe logging for version one.

Lincoln, why you hatin' on type-safe logging? Brother, hook me up with a +1


Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

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