Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nospam0002@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.222 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=imDPM9MHlONKodAnn6SCeTy+13f7OlxL2O0/VkPFMv0nHh8nlS+nHCOQutQmcCfVn0
         JDd9bmAsV3mWVfyQTT/awzFZyTuENKGs2pwDnI5s3BYdVujl83JvESfgFuSBy1HnVwIL
         0z/cF574W98FR+1crDmm9iCwWzoguhns0iXB4=
Message-ID: <4C027DC8.4000508@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 17:01:28 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Thorbj=F8rn_Ravn_Andersen?= <nospam0002@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; da;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Future development of Log4J?
References: <ded132f10912091702r707b33e5g3f31e3bb058005ee@mail.gmail.com>
 	<ded132f10912110150q3817a9c3j4570124186d2c099@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4B2218A4.1080900@qos.ch>
 <ded132f10912110313m5edf0f30p4dc79e6b0a1e787e@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4B222E46.4030602@qos.ch>
 <1C4FF2CB-F8A5-4113-8FB3-9E1A44A6F6DD@dslextreme.com>
 	<4B22C6B6.5000205@qos.ch>
 <ded132f10912111702w2a197c47n89405b3e6518e557@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ded132f10912111702w2a197c47n89405b3e6518e557@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Den 12/12/09 02.02, Christian Grobmeier skrev:
> SLF4J - sorry I don't know much about it. But from its website, its
> again a QOS project and it seems to be a wrapper around various
> logging APIs. Besides that I never had a benefit from encapsulating a
> logging framework (I never switched from JDK logging to Log4J or vice
> versa while developing a project) I wonder why you are referring to
> this. Maybe I didn't get the point, but why can't we just refactor
> Log4J and clean it up and include this locking issue and Java5
> features you mentioned?
>    
Just commenting on an old thread:

Each logging framework has advantages and disadvantages, and by using 
slf4j you can postpone the decision which one to use to deployment 
time.   This is a good thing if you write code which is reused over 
several projects, or if you have heterogeneous platforms for deployments.

It gives you an extra degree of flexibility which is nice to have.

-- 
   Thorbj�rn Ravn Andersen  "...plus... Tubular Bells!"


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org