I agree with Hazem, +1 for Gerhards suggestion.
/Jan-Kees
2009/7/8 Hazem Saleh :
> +1 for Gerhard new suggestion.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe we should stop the voting process
>>
>> +1 (due to several reasons)
>>
>> new suggestion:
>> if a sub-pro
+1 for Gerhard new suggestion.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe we should stop the voting process
>
> +1 (due to several reasons)
>
> new suggestion:
> if a sub-project would like to switch to jul, we don't need a vote (since
> there
> Maybe we should stop the voting process
+1 (due to several reasons)
new suggestion:
if a sub-project would like to switch to jul, we don't need a vote (since
there is no new dependency).
if a sub-project would like to switch e.g. to slf4j, we have to vote (due to
the new logging-framework depen
Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
Hi,
i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the user.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Regards
Bernd
Maybe we should stop the voting process for now until we have done
further research on the i
Hi,
i think many users are still using log4j in their projects.
Switching to jul instead of slf4j would cause more consequences for the user.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Regards
Bernd
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ganesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this an invalid veto?
>
>>> To prevent vetos from being
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ganesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this an invalid veto?
maybe. not sure if pushing this is healthy for the community too.
If he wants to not use jul, it is OK w/ me...
>
>>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied
>>> by a technical justif
Hi,
Is this an invalid veto?
>> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be
accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad
(opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, /etc./). A
veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight.
+1 away from commons logging
-1 force to use jul
I would prefer slf4j because it's a logging facade similar to commons logging.
And I would like to use Mapped Diagnostic Context (MDC) support. Has
jul a similar feature?
Regards
Bernd
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andrew
Robinson wrote:
> +0
Quick googling reveals that WAS does at least since 6.0,
http://www.webagesolutions.com/knowledgebase/waskb/waskb026/index.html
Weblogic also:
http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs81/javadocs/weblogic/logging/WLLevel.html
not sure about the others like jetty though, but you can use sl4j
adapters in the
+0, I'd prefer slf4j as well. But, I am +1 of getting away from
commons logging as it has too many issues.
-Andrew
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Werner Punz wrote:
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>
>> For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning
>> that).
>> The Trinida
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
For Trinidad, we keep our Trinidad logger (at least I am not chaning that).
The TrinidadLogger is internally using JUL, for what's worth. So I think
we are fine with that, at least I hope...
I dont think anything has to be changed on the Trinidad side in this
regar
Hi,
in the thread "slf4j and myfaces" was a possible Problem mentioned:
>> What I'm not sure is
>> if the "JUL to other logging impl bridge" is multiple application
>> friendly. What happens if the JUL root handler is replaced (thats what
>> these bridges seem to do). Does this influence the serv
>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
ok, that answers my question.
>> currently using commons-logging.
>> so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
>>
>> if there won't be a majority, we will open a second vote (switch from
>> commons-logg
I think I have a question...
Is this to *force* all the subprojects to use jul ???
If so, I'll change my vote to -1
Also, I know that Tobago has a JIRA issue to use slf4j. What's
wrong with them using that ?
I am not sure on this vote, but if the goal is to *push* one decision
to all the subproj
Sorry to pollute the vote with a discussion ;)
+1 for JUL
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Grant Smith wrote:
> You can use slf4j as a facade for JUL though, can't you ?
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Werner Punz wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
>>
>> hi,
>>>
>>> short de
You can use slf4j as a facade for JUL though, can't you ?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Werner Punz wrote:
> +1
>
>
> Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
>
> hi,
>>
>> short description:
>> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
>> java.util.logging (jul).
>> it's a binding v
+1
Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are
+0.5
I like SLF4J as well, but I won't get in the way of JUL.
Never used JUL myself, so I don't know for sure if there might be any
hidden quirks. ;-)
--Manfred
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 20:32, Gerhard
Petracek wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons
+1 for JUL.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Cagatay Civici wrote:
> -0.5, I like slf4j :)
> Regards,
>
> Cagatay
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
-0.5, I like slf4j :)
Regards,
Cagatay
On Jun 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which
are currently us
+1
Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 09. Juni 2009 20:33
An: MyFaces Development
Betreff: [VOTE] jul instead of commons-logging
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it
+1
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Curtiss Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gerhard
> Petracek wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> short description:
>> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
>> java.util.logging (jul).
>> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all m
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gerhard
Petracek wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> so e.g. t
+1
Gerhard Petracek wrote:
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which
are currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are av
+0.75
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Gerhard
Petracek wrote:
> hi,
>
> short description:
> this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
> java.util.logging (jul).
> it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
> currently using commons-logging.
> s
hi,
short description:
this first vote is about the switch from commons-logging (cl) to
java.util.logging (jul).
it's a binding vote for the next releases of all myfaces libs which are
currently using commons-logging.
so e.g. trinidad isn't affected. details are available at [1]
if there won't be
26 matches
Mail list logo
