I agree that we should be doing whatever we can to spread awareness. Part of that seems to be correcting misconceptions. I don't know how many times I've had to explain that log4j-api is basically like slf4j-api on steroids and is just as much of a facade as SLF4J is.

On 25 June 2016 at 21:11, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm.... Maybe this was not a very good link...
In general I want to encourage people to write about Log4j 2 though. 
I think Log4j 2 is still relatively unknown and we need other people to help us spread awareness.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not exactly sure why the author uses the internal JUL LogManager instead of the standard one (which gets replaced with ours on initialization anyways).




--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>




--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>