hi carlos, over the years we had a lot of discussions. you found the last discussion we had (which is also the one with my initial slf4j suggestion).
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 Carlos Vara <[email protected]> > Hi Gerhard, > > I think I located the thread in MyFaces mailing list, I will link it > here for reference: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg39139.html > > I'm not really too much opinionated about logging frameworks. I think > that SLF4J usually offers the best compromise and is more flexible, > but if more importance is given to other factors like not adding any > dependencies or not modifying the current codebase, then JUL and > keeping JCL would be the best choices respectively. > > I vote for SLF4J, but I will also help in an eventual JUL migration if > that was the chosen logging framework. > > Regards, > Carlos > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Gerhard Petracek > <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi carlos, > > > > i won't join the next long discussion about logging frameworks (just > because > > such a discussion won't lead to a solution which works for most users - > > there are just too many completely different opinions out there). > > > > don't get me wrong - slf4j is a nice framework. in fact my original > > suggestion was to use it for all myfaces sub-projects. > > > > i just provided the result of a lot of very long and detailed discussions > in > > the myfaces community. > > -> we can benefit from these discussions or we just ignore them. (both > cases > > might lead to additional online and/or offline discussions.) > > > > 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 Carlos Vara <[email protected]> > > > >> > 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 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
