> there is a jul to slf4j bridge -> users would still have the choice.
Yep, but if I remember it right, that bridge offers bad performance as there is no way to re-implement jul classes so it has to translate the logging messages. Log4j and commons logging bridges don't have that problem. Regards, Carlos > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2010/5/24 Donald Woods <[email protected]> > > > Moving to the SLF4J API would be nice, in that then users can choose > > which logger they want - Log4J, Jul, Simple, None, .... > > > > But, I see this as a 0.2 improvement and not as a stop-ship requirement > > for a 0.1-incubating release. > > > > > > -Donald > > > > > > On 5/24/10 4:27 AM, Carlos Vara wrote: > > >> > > >> 3. Is anyone interested in using slf4j instead of commons-logging? > > >> > > > > > > I am. At the moment I'm using a config similar to the one described here: > > > http://blog.springsource.com/2009/12/04/logging-dependencies-in-spring/, > > > which adds a bit of complexity in the pom but works fine. > > > > > > However, if dropping commons-logging (before or after the release) is an > > > option, I volunteer to do the necessary changes in the code to migrate to > > > slf4j. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Carlos > > > > >
