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:
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
I would rather we eat our own dog food with log4j or commons logging.
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,
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
