On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Robert Elliot wrote: > Hi, > > I've been browsing the Log4j2 site, and the documentation is unsurprisingly > very focussed on people using the Log4j2 API directly. Given the profile of > Apache & Log4j as brands this means we will almost certainly very soon see > libraries logging directly to the Log4j2 API (whether this is the intent of > the committers or not). Which means that application writers will soon need > to manage the log messages from those libraries as those libraries are > brought in to their applications, directly or by transitive dependencies. > > Currently SLF4J provides means to redirect java.util.logging, Log4j and > Commons Logging to SLF4J, and thankfully Logback doesn't encourage clients to > use its API directly, making SLF4J the simplest means for centralising the > diverse logging APIs in use to a single implementation of my own choice. > > I see there is a way to make Log4j2 an SLF4J implementation, but I could not > see any documentation on redirecting Log4j2 to SLF4J in the event that the > end application does not wish to use Log4j2 as its logging implentation. Is > this on the cards? >
You didn't ask this, but the intent of separating the Log4j 2 APi from the impl is not to create another generic API to compete with SLF4J. However, the Log4j 2 API contains more features than are available in SLF4J (mainly Messages), so I would expect some loss of functionality and/or performance in a bridge like this. I haven't spent any time looking into what it would take to implement the SLF4J bridge as I expected that would be part of the SLF4J offering. That said, my guess is that SLF4J could be treated as an alternate Log4j 2 implementation. I'll add that to my list of things to do and if it works out I'd probably donate it to SLF4J. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
