+1 for SLF4J.
a "no" to JUL, but anyway: after the 0.1 release, please. I think there
are more important things to be done, which are even more interesting...
On 5/24/2010 8:33 PM, Carlos Vara wrote:
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
