There is a huge list of advantages to using log4j-api over slf4j-api nowadays, plus I do prefer to use Apache dependencies in Apache projects unless the competition is clearly better for the use case (like using Jetty instead of Tomcat in Karaf due to OSGi support). Also, using log4j-api works fine with logback as well, so it's not like it prevents people from using slf4j bindings at runtime.
On 8 June 2016 at 05:51, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > IMO. if [crypto] is to have a dependency on a logging framework, it > should > > be Log4j 2, not Commons Logging. Log4j 2 has an API module, which you can > > pair with any number of implementations: Log4j's own Core, JUL, SLF4J, > and > > so on. > > > > > I would prefer SLF4J, personally. It is by far the most popular based on > my experience with the libraries that I use. This is assuming the > component does use a logging framework. Others have suggested that it does > not. I don't know that it really matters to me one way or the other, but I > do know that in the past when I didn't have any logging when things went > bump, it was hard to determine what to do to fix it. Some folks keep JMX > stats and the like to help and I suppose that's an option. > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
