maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SLF4J implementation [was Re: svn commit: r1380105 - in /maven/maven-3/trunk: ./ apache-maven/ maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/classrealm/ maven-embedder/ maven-embedder/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/cli/]
Date Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:43:39 GMT
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> sorry, didn't catch this reply earlier.
>
> I see, but then we are back to my original problem. Once you add e.g. log4j-slf4j binding
then you will get nasty class cast exceptions because they are not fully binary compatible.
If there is a log4j.jar in the classpath of the plugin already then it might even crash with
a weird Exception.

Folks, I'm sorry, but I'm not following this argument. I apologize for
being slow, but I really wish that someone would sort this into a
small number of questions and explain the pros and cons of them.

I'm fine with declaring SLF4J to be the primary logging API inside
Maven, and leaving it to individual plugin authors to toss in X-slf4j
if they want to. I can see why putting X-slf4j into the plugin
classpath by default could have surprising and unpleasant results, but
there might be a persuasive reason to do it anyway.



>
>
> I've seen such problems in the wild.
> This is nothing which slf4j does wrong - it's just not really possible to do it 100%
right.
>
> We imo only have the option to choose between different kinds of 'broken'.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io>
>> To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: SLF4J implementation [was Re: svn commit: r1380105 - in /maven/maven-3/trunk:
./ apache-maven/ maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/classrealm/ maven-embedder/ maven-embedder/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/cli/]
>>
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>>>  Can you again please explain me what the benefit of the SLF4J abstraction
>> over the already used plexus.Logger is? Both are just logging facades.
>>>
>>
>> But really I think the biggest benefit is that, as far as I know, SLF4J
>> integrates with every known logging framework right now. In that it can coerce
>> JUL, and CL logging into a unified framework which I don't believe any of
>> the other frameworks do, or do as well. Maven is about integration and for
>> logging I believe it's the best solution that exists for the least effort.
>>
>> I think it's been adopted at Apache by so many projects specifically for
>> those reasons. Ceki is also a committer, and will help us fix anything when
>> necessary so that, again, we can focus on Maven and not logging.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.
>>
>> -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kurosawa
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message