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, 10 Dec 2012 01:50:33 GMT
I think it's time to stop patching SLF4J Simple. I have an inefficient fix for the embedding
problem, but we're likely to run into issues concurrency with parallel builds and who knows
what else. This will patch/change #5 and many hours of trying to get SLF4J Simple to work
but I think we're pushing the simple implementation beyond its scope. So I'd just like to
put in Logback and be done with it. 

There are at least three of us opposed to using a new logging framework, but I don't think
there is anyone against using Logback. I honestly don't think there is any rational argument
for not using Logback,  so after doing all the SLF4J work and making a best effort to use
SLF4J Simple I think it's pointless to pursue that path any longer and put in Logback.

On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arnaud Héritier <> wrote:

> I'm a little bit lost too.
> Thus for now in 3.1.0 we didn't want to provide a new logging impl fwk (for
> many - good - reasons) but the last bug discovered by Kristian can be
> solved only
> * by having a fix from slf4j (but it isn't sure that the patch makes sense
> - to be validated by Ceki)
> * or by using a more evolved impl like logback (or log4j ...).
> I think that everyone's will prefer the first solution if possible but if
> we cannot we'll have the question to select the impl.
> Do we need to vote ? Is there really a question logback vs log4j(2) ?
> Like I said in another thread I'll understand if the project decide to
> choose log4j2 even if it is young because we want to support another ASF
> initiative (And I'm sure we won't have to regret it, and we'll have a
> really good support from its team) but in a general case I would prefer to
> choose logback which is today the reference logging framework (I that case
> we need to have a PMC vote to accept an external component under EPL
> license ?).
> What do we need (for 3.1.0) ? What do we do ?
> Arnaud
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Anders Hammar <> wrote:
>> Not sure where to get into this thread, but I'd just like to add my
>> perspective on this topic.
>> For this first release I would prefer it to not include any of the more
>> advanced slf4j implementations, like a few others have already also stated.
>> Using simple would give us a good start on this new path while we
>> investigate what we and the community want feature wise and then select an
>> implementation based on these requirements. However, if slf4-simple can't
>> do the job of the old behavior when we might not have that option
>> unfortunately. Or, possibly we could live with these deficiencies? I'll
>> leave that to others working with that to decide.
>> But if we have to decide on a more advanced implementation my choice would
>> be logback. My choice is based on two things where one being a past
>> experience where I developed an audit logging solution based on logback,
>> where my research showed that log4j had so many deficiencies when it came
>> to more advanced cases. log4j2 might be a different story with this fixed
>> though, but I don't see any reason trying something else when there is
>> proven option. Secondly, I have good confidence in Ceki and that he will
>> help us out should we need that. I'm not saying those working with log4j2
>> will not, it's just that I don't know their track record as I know Ceki's.
>> But to repeat myself, going simple in the first release would be so much
>> better. Then we could get our requirements after this first release and do
>> a selection based on them rather than just a gut feeling. Although using
>> slf4j as the API gives us the technical possibility of switching impl later
>> on, I don't think we want that as we can probably expect some people do
>> solutions expecting a specific impl (as we've seen in the Sonar plugin for
>> example).
>> /Anders
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 9 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy < <javascript:;>>:
>>>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2.
>>>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy.
>>>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it.
>>>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in case of any
>>>>> issue we could have.
>>>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is actually
>>>> going,  but I'm firmly opposed
>>>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3.
>>> +1
>>>> Kristian
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:<javascript:;>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> <javascript:;>
> -- 
> -----
> Arnaud Héritier
> Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier



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

Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.

 -- Benjamin Franklin

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