myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redirecting JUL Logging to other logging systems -- do we need to revisit our logging methodology?
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:47:28 GMT
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
View raw message