maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: Logging
Date Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:12:07 GMT
I'm going to push this along and I agree with Stephen insofar as if you prefer an implementation
then there should be a branch to support that preference. Thus far I have not seen anything
aside from Stephen's efforts which are a PoC so the choice is between SLF4J Simple, Logback
and Log4J2.

If we want to put aside the debate, Ceki has figured out a way for use SLF4J Simple by resetting
the streams and logging level. Which I can try if we want to go down that path. I didn't have
to do any work in SLF4J myself so I'm fine with this approach.

On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly <> wrote:

> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <> wrote:
>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <>:
>>> Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some code
>> to
>>> make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and
>> committing
>>> it, those branches are dead... as are those choices.
>>> That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table...
>>> JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs
>>> I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating
>> for
>>> log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes the
>>> ITs.
>> branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this
>> jenkins job
> Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will now
> rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up
> from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-)
>>> I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent third
>>> party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration tests
>> to
>>> pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either has a
>>> branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are needing
>>> to give better proof.
>>> Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing against
>>> log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one of the
>>> other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing some
>>> code...)
>> My 0.02 euros.
>> Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue.
>> And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports
>> from folks on the other thread)
>> I read (agree
>> benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if
>> runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care.
>> Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good
>> license for our Maven.
> These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I have
> not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options through
> the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical
> debates.



Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder,  Apache Maven

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.

 -- John von Neumann

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