myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ertio Lew <ertio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:02:29 GMT
Yes, things change with time & may be it didn't mattered too much that time
but today SL4J is the need as it is widely adopted now.

So +1 for SL4J !

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>wrote:

> Well, that and at the time, it seemed like JUL would let us do
> everything SL4J claimed to do.   But as I stated earlier, the
> theoretical promises of JUL pluggability didn't live up to the real
> use conditions.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > When we took the vote two years ago, I at least didn't really
> > understand the need.
> >
> > Someone did bring up that point, but as a group we felt that
> > reinventing the wheel didn't make a lot of sense.   SL4J was new, and
> > I for one didn't understand the advantages of using it.
> >
> > If we were to vote again today, I would be strongly in favor of using
> > SL4J as the logging mechanism.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why doesn't Myfaces allows the flexibility to plug in your desired
> logging
> >> SL4J implementation instead of restricting users to JUL/ Commons
> logging or
> >> otherwise incurring the overheads of using bridgeHandlers etc ?!
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Did you ever say something you really regretted?
> >>>
> >>> I really regret saying that I strongly preferred JUL over SL4J on the
> >>> logging vote two years back[1].
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C8f985b960906060447g30bb216ew62102b39be2a1f27@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> I am currently using the SLF4JBridgeHandler for JUL during
> >>> development, and incurring the performance hits.
> >>>
> >>> Barring other events, my plans are to default back to JUL logging for
> >>> production.
> >>>
> >>> How are other people handling this?  I know at the time of the
> >>> discussion many people were switching to SL4J or still using log4j or
> >>> JCL, all of which would have the same performance issues.
> >>>
> >>> Is it time to revisit our logging yet again, now that we know the
> >>> theoretical flexibility of JUL didn't live up to the practical reality
> >>> of using it?
> >>>
> >>> slf4j and myfaces
> >>>
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C2332f63b0906050818q6c74e615u2edc7cc2ec9f5101@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
> >>>
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200906.mbox/%3C2332f63b0906091132y10cd0dadu4eb4a36dda6ae683@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> [VOTE] use of jul or commons logging on myfaces core 2.0
> >>>
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200910.mbox/%3Cf6c92360909301905g104297a5m3bba5fb3d0574fd@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2378
> >>>
>

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