ibatis-user-java mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zart Colwin <za...@wanadoo.fr>
Subject Re: iBATIS3 and SLF4J
Date Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:37:07 GMT
Clinton Begin wrote:
> >> You think it's not a hack, I do think it is one,
>
> You are rude, disrespectful and do not know what you're talking about.
Sorry for being rude and disrespectful, it was not my intention (my 
English vocabulary might be too limited to easily express myself with 
all the nuances required).

> iBATIS isn't a logging framework, it USES and SUPPORTS various logging 
> frameworks to make it as easy as possible for others to use it without 
> dependencies.
Right, iBatis is not a logging framework so it probably shouldn't try to 
implements a logging facade, it better use an existing one.
I think I finally understand what your are saying with "without 
dependencies", but is it possible to achieve? iBatis will at least have 
a dependencies to a JDBC drivers isn't it, so why not having a 
dependency to a logging facade?  There are many frameworks that have 
such a dependency and it's not unacceptable.

>   You might like SLF4J, but THOUSANDS of others might prefer log4j.
SLF4J is not a logging implementation, but a logging abstraction layer 
(i.e. a logging facade), it delegates to whatever implementation you put 
in the classpath: log4j, jdk1.4, simple, nop. It even can bridge to 
commons-logging.

> Can we support SLF4J the same way?  Yes.  Can we make the logging 
> framework pluggable and configurable?  Yes. 
>
> Am I going to do it?  No. You are welcome to.
But we will end up with code that resemble what SLF4J have implemented. 
Better use SLF4J right from the beginning.

> >> Chance are that SLF4J ***or*** commons-logging are already mandated 
> by the client application itself
>
> Yes "or"... OR... "or"!!!!  See, you don't get it.  You really don't 
> understand the purpose of this implementation and you dare to 
> criticize it in such a rude fashion.
Then why didn't you explained it when Mr Cyril P. asked why SLF4J was 
not used ?

> Then stop.  You're wasting our time and making a fool of yourself.
You have the right to think that I'm making a fool of myself in 
defending the idea that SLF4J is a better solution to the logger 
alphabet-soup even for iBatis. I'm certainly not the best advocate but 
this probably doesn't gives you the right to attempt to unsubscribe me 
from the mailing list.

ZC.

>
> Clinton
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Zart Colwin <zartc@wanadoo.fr 
> <mailto:zartc@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>
>>     It's not a hack, or at least no more than SLF4J was the first day
>>     they decided that they wanted something better than commons
>>     logging etc.
>>
>>     => Have some respect for the opinions and efforts of others! <=
>     I do respect efforts of others, that's why I wouldn't want to
>     re-implement something that was already brilliantly implemented
>     and documented, and amply tested by a large number of user. I
>     wouldn't have the presumption to think that I could do better than
>     Ceki Gülcü that have 10+ years of experience in that particular field.
>     You think it's not a hack, I do think it is one, by examining the
>     code for a few minutes I have found two "conceptual" bugs in it:
>     - Q: How to express which Logging technology to bind to in case
>     multiple are available from the classpath (a classical situation
>     nowadays)? A: Basically you can't,  the lookup order is hard coded
>     - first commons-logging, then log4j, then jdk4, etc...
>     - Q: How to setup the classpath in order to use the
>     "org.apache.ibatis.logging.nologging.NoLoggingImpl" ?  A: In fact
>     you can't, since beginning with JDK1.4 java.util.logging.Logger
>     will alway be present thus discovered by the lookup, thus iBatis
>     will alway at least log through java.util.logging.Logger unless it
>     runs on JDK1.3.
>     Ho, and changing the client application code to call one of the
>     LogFactory.useXxxLogging explicitly is not an option at deployment
>     time.
>
>
>>     One of our goals has always been to have a single-jar deployment
>>     with no required dependencies -- a far cry from the JAR soup that
>>     many frameworks require.  
>     Chance are that SLF4J or commons-logging are already mandated by
>     the client application itself - I can hardly think of a modern
>     application that doesn't log its own events. The JAR soup is
>     "setup once and forget" kind of problem just setup your ant script
>     or maven pom and forget about it. Not big enough to warrant the
>     rewrite of an existing library.
>
>
>>     We don't want to create version dependency conflicts with other
>>     open source projects.
>     What version dependency conflicts? SLF4J is an interface, backward
>     compatibility is taking very seriously by the SL4FJ team and is
>     guarantied for simple logging usage.
>
>
>>     The problem with logging was created by Sun years ago, and now we
>>     have to deal with it.
>     Because Sun snub the excellent Log4J. Does Sun have come with
>     something better than Log4J ? Hardly so. SLF4J was created
>     especially to deal with the issue created by stupid Sun;  Not
>     using it is counter productive (even insulting for whom have
>     created it).
>
>
>>     If you want to implement  SLF4J and contribute it, then do so and
>>     attach it to a JIRA ticket.  Here's the interface:
>>
>>     http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ibatis/java/ibatis-3/trunk/ibatis-3-core/src/main/java/org/apache/ibatis/logging/
>     I'd rather prefer to fix iBatis so that it uses SLF4J directly and
>     then let SLF4J community implements new binding if/when one need.
>
>
>     sincerely, I hate to argument that way, but I sincerely think that
>     collaboration between open source projects is better than
>     isolation and I still can't see a good reason why SLF4J couldn't
>     be used to begin with.
>
>     sincerely,
>     ZC.
>
>
>
>
>     Clinton Begin wrote:
>>     It's not a hack, or at least no more than SLF4J was the first day
>>     they decided that they wanted something better than commons
>>     logging etc.
>>
>>     => Have some respect for the opinions and efforts of others! <=
>>
>>     One of our goals has always been to have a single-jar deployment
>>     with no required dependencies -- a far cry from the JAR soup that
>>     many frameworks require.  We don't want to create version
>>     dependency conflicts with other open source projects.
>>
>>     The problem with logging was created by Sun years ago, and now we
>>     have to deal with it.  iBATIS can use Commons Logging (and thus
>>     whatever it supports), Log4J or Java 1.4+ Logging directly.
>>
>>     The dependency on Log4J was accidental (a bug).  iBATIS *DOES
>>     NOT* depend on Log4J.  The issue is fixed, as per this JIRA ticket:
>>
>>     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IBATIS-626
>>
>>     If you want to implement  SLF4J and contribute it, then do so and
>>     attach it to a JIRA ticket.  Here's the interface:
>>
>>     http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ibatis/java/ibatis-3/trunk/ibatis-3-core/src/main/java/org/apache/ibatis/logging/
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Clinton
>>
>>     On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Zart Colwin <zartc@wanadoo.fr
>>     <mailto:zartc@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>         I'm not convinced that slf4j is any better than the more
>>>         widely used commons-logging. 
>>         Market share or product market penetration often do not
>>         directly reflect the quality of one product compared to
>>         another one. It merely reflect the power of one supplier to
>>         impose its products over the other ones; It is not unexpected
>>         to see commons-logging still having more market penetration
>>         than SLF4J since commons-logging was there earlier and since
>>         many ASF framework largely use it.
>>
>>         Taking your words literally, then no-one should bother to use
>>         iBatis since the market ORM/persistance is largely dominated
>>         by Hibernate which have a huge advance in market share over
>>         any other ORM/persistance frameworks. The same goes true for
>>         things like Firefox against IE, Linux against Window, even
>>         Windows7 against WindowsXP.
>>
>>
>>>         If we want logging autonomy I'd rather go with what we did
>>>         in the last version and simply implement an internal
>>>         commons-logging-ish solution.
>>         I'm completely shocked that you did this. What was so wrong
>>         with SLF4J or commons-logging that you decided to hack your
>>         own logging abstraction layer?   Standing by your own
>>         statement, how can you be convinced that your hack is any
>>         better than the more widely used SLF4J or commons-logging?
>>
>>
>>         ZC
>>
>>
>>         Brandon Goodin wrote:
>>>         I'm not convinced that slf4j is any better than the more
>>>         widely used commons-logging. I know there are those who
>>>         believe passionately on both sides of this discussion and I
>>>         don't mean to berate anyone. If we want logging autonomy I'd
>>>         rather go with what we did in the last version and simply
>>>         implement an internal commons-logging-ish solution.
>>>
>>>         Brandon
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Cyril Pfaff
>>>         <cyril.pfaff@gmail.com <mailto:cyril.pfaff@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>             Hi, 
>>>
>>>             Thanks for this amazing product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             Currently, iBATIS3 currently depends on log4j. Even if I
>>>             like log4j, It would be interesting to look at SLF4J
>>>             (http://www.slf4j.org/) as it may offers more
>>>             flexibility (Basically due to the fact that it's an
>>>             abstraction layer for various logging frameworks.)
>>>
>>>
>>>             I did not find anything interesting in the mail archive
>>>             regarding this subject:
>>>
>>>             So ... what about slf4j ? Has this option already been
>>>             discussed and rejected internally, or is it possible to
>>>             use this logging facility instead of log4j in the next
>>>             releases of iBATIS3 ??
>>>
>>>             Thanks again for your time.
>>>             Regards.
>>>             c. 
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message