On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would rather we eat our own dog food with log4j or commons logging.
As classscan is in sandbox... I think it would help the logging team if we would try log4j 2.0 alpha. It is a great framework already and logging-people could learn about problems. The time when classscan is leaving the sandbox and prepares for a proper release we can decide again to switch to th e more stable logback or leave the dependency to the rising log4j 2.0. To learn more on log4j 2.0 please visit: https://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/ Cheers Christian > Gary > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:42, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> Well, you might want the logging to be silent during normal testing but to >> be enabled if problems arise. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Benson wrote: >> >>> Can anyone provide a reason [classscan] should not simply use >>> slf4j-simple in the test scope rather than logback? It's a small >>> change, but any reduction in complexity... >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
