+1 to what JB said.
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 to what JB said. > > Will just have to be documented well as if we provide no binding there will > be no logging out of the box unless the user adds a binding. > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Aviem, >> >> Good point. >> >> I think, in our dependencies set, we should just depend to slf4j-api and >> let the >> user provides the binding he wants (slf4j-log4j12, slf4j-simple, whatever). >> >> We define a binding only with test scope in our modules. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> On 03/22/2017 04:58 AM, Aviem Zur wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> There have been a few reports lately (On JIRA [1] and on Slack) from >> users >>> regarding inconsistent loggers used across Beam's modules. >>> >>> While we use SLF4J, different modules use a different logger behind it >>> (JUL, log4j, etc) >>> So when people add a log4j.properties file to their classpath for >> instance, >>> they expect this to affect all of their dependencies on Beam modules, but >>> it doesn’t and they miss out on some logs they thought they would see. >>> >>> I think we should strive for consistency in which logger is used behind >>> SLF4J, and try to enforce this in our modules. >>> I for one think it should be slf4j-log4j. However, if performance of >>> logging is critical we might want to consider logback. >>> >>> Note: SLF4J will still be the facade for logging across the project. The >>> only change would be the logger SLF4J delegates to. >>> >>> Once we have something like this it would also be useful to add >>> documentation on logging in Beam to the website. >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1757 >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>
