maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Logback in Maven Core
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:39:41 GMT
On Tuesday, 11 December 2012, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
>
> My thoughts:
> 99.5% (or more) of the maven users will not care one way or another what
> logging impl we use.  They won't configure anything beyond -X.   They won't
> try changing loggers.   They won't muck with the configs.  Etc..   They
> just run "mvn" and expect it to work.
>
> For the remaining <0.5%, no matter what we do, we will need to document
> things clearly about how to configure things.   For these folks, they are
> generally "experts" and thus a couple extra steps to replace a logging
> framework, edit configs, etc… is not a big deal at all.  (again, DOCUMENT
> this all clearly or provide a nice maven plugin or something to do it for
> them)
>
>
> My preference, in order:
>
> slf4j-jdk14
> slf4j-simple
> log4j2
> slf4j-log4j
>
> and then a big gap to logback.
>
> The first two are there as they would provide the least amount of "extra
> dependencies", complexity, etc…  That said, we know slf4j-simple has
> issues.   Not sure if anyone has even tried slf4j-jdk14.   For our CLI
> case, I don't see any advantage of logback over log4j2 or slf4j-log4j.
>  If the entire argument is around wanting something "battle tested", go for
> slf4j-log4j.   It's certainly used by more projects than logback and more
> people would already know it's configuration options.   Personally, I find
> the "number of projects" argument annoying and mostly irrelevant.  (and at
> least 2 of the "Apache 8" projects that are on the logback homepage don't
> use logback, they now use slf4j-log4j)
>
> Thus, it comes down to two major things for me:
>
> 1) License issues - (sorry Stephen, this IS an issue)  I fully plan to
> vote -1 for logback if/when presented to the PMC for approval.   There are
> very good options that would work just as well for our needs that are not
> EPL.


My points are:

1. that we should make sure the selected implementation passes the
technical gate *first*

2. That committers should not worry about the outcome of a PMC vote when
making their recommendation on implementation. If the PMC chooses to say no
to a specific dependency on the basis of its license *then* the community
will presumably have a second option that passes the technical gate and can
fall back to that... But the very first question that committers should
consider is the technical basis.

I don't care what criteria people use as long as technical is #1.


>
> 2) Community - Ceki is great, no doubt about it, but at the end of the
> day, logback is pretty much a one man show.   Apache is more about
> "community" and "community over code" and all that.   I strongly prefer
> something that has a community behind it, or, at the very least, is open to
> developing a community behind it.   Major bonus points if that community
> already contains Maven PMC members/committers on it.    If *we* run into
> issues, I strongly prefer that *we* can get those issues fixed.
>
> If two options are functionally and technically equivalent (within
> reasonable limits), then I'll take the community driven, permissive
> licensed version.


Thank you for stating your criteria

I wish everyone else could follow your example


>
> That's my $0.02 worth.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I looked around a bit more today and I don't think SLF4J Simple is
> viable long term, I don't want to patch it anymore as I would have to do a
> day's work to make changes that keep the performance levels up, get it
> reviewed and released, and I honestly don't think it's worth it anymore. I
> would rather spend my time building out the plugin test cases and help to
> finish the classloader blocking of SLF4J. I don't mind spending time
> getting it all working but I don't want to waste my time on an
> implementation we're going to toss.
> >
> > After a conversation with the PMC it will require a vote to accept
> Logback which is EPL but I wanted to ask committers and interested users
> about using Logback. I believe Logback is the best choice as it's the most
> mature and battle tested implementation because once it goes in it's likely
> not ever to come out. Many of us are users and have integration experience
> with Logback and it's what I use everyday for logging in all my other
> projects and I've been a happy user for years. I see Logback as best of
> breed and widely adopted including 8 projects at Apache.
> >
> > There's no point in asking the PMC to vote on the acceptance of Logback
> if it's not acceptable by the community. If there are interested users I
> would really like to hear what you think because you're the ones who will
> have to live with the choice that is made.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Jason van Zyl
> > Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> > Founder,  Apache Maven
> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To do two things at once is to do neither.
> >
> > -- Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>
>

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