Yeah, whichever way we bridge commons-logging, we need to do it. There are two things to consider:
1. logging API used in the code (Cayenne core uses common-logging). 2. logging implementation that bridges #1 and writes the logs out. Choices are: Logback, Log4J, slf4j-simple. The first two are configurable via properties. I have no preference as to #2. There may be some slight benefit in switching #1 to SLF, but this is a different discussion. Andrus > On May 24, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Savva Kolbachev <s.kolbac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know a lot about loggers, but I've tried to use the old log4j > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/log4j/log4j/1.2.17 instead of slf4j in > the test scope and it works. I could handle the behavior > via commons-logging.properties and log4j.properties files. > > So, how about to move from slf4j to log4j for test purposes? > > > 2016-04-18 9:43 GMT+03:00 Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org>: > >> On 18/04/2016 4:27pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >>> "mvn -q" suppresses Maven's own logging. >> >> We've already got that, but it doesn't stop much. >> >>> This leaves Cayenne's logging. To control that, we need to provide >> proper logging dependencies in the "test" scope. E.g. add >> SLF4J-to-commons-loging bridge and Logback jars, and then configure Logback >> to use a minimal prefix for each log line. >> >> I was proceeding on the assumption that commons-logging sends to the >> default Java logger when nothing else is configured. Perhaps you are right >> and we add log4j or slf4j to the test dependencies and then try to silence >> that. >> >> Ari >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------> >> Aristedes Maniatis >> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >> > > > > -- > Thanks and Regards > Savva Kolbachev
