The thing I like about SLF4J, is it allows the user to choose a log implementation (or none at all.) For existing projects/products, this can be a real bonus. For example, OpenJPA is still using commons-logging by default (but allows users to choose from Log4J, no logging or a user provided logger) while Geronimo has moved to SLF4J (and includes the log4j12, jcl and jul adapters due to all of the other projects they use.)
Something else to think about, is if we use SLF4J API, then we can be a drop in replacement for Hibernate Validator... :-) -Donald On 5/25/10 3:48 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > I agree that this should be done after the release. > > Regarding logging: I am fine with JUL. I don't really care too much > about that topic these days, > hence I am fine with SLF4J, but I think I'd prefer JUL over it :-) > > -Matthias > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Roman Stumm <[email protected]> wrote: >> +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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
