Those discussions are really an all time classic ;) Imo most new frameworks now usually use jul Logger directly or with an own self written convenience wrapper. jul has improved a lot over the first version and now is pretty much usable. It's still not the best logging framework around from the technical point of view. But if considering it's out-of-the-box experience together with not needing to add a 3rd party jar anymore outweights this by far.
LieGrue, strub --- On Mon, 5/24/10, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Build suggestions > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 7:02 PM > 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 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
