I'll check it out. The printf sounds nice On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:18 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 9, 2016, at 3:55 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:19 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > >> > > It's just my personal preference. I have grown used to it and use it so > > much. In Karaf (where I spend most of my time these days), I don't even > > have to think about it. > > That is understandable. But you should really compare the APIs. Just as > SLF4J is much better than Commons Logging, so too is Log4j’s API much > better than SLF4J’s - at least in the opinion of those who develop Log4j. > > Also, SLF4J advertises 2 key features - parameterized log statements and > Markers. However, SLF4J markers are a mess. The code isn’t thread safe and > has terrible performance (which you can see on the Log4j performance page). > Log4j also supports parameterized logging, but it also supports using > printf style strings, MessageFormat strings as well as logging Messages > instead of Strings. And, of course, it supports Lamda’s, which goes even > further into not needing to wrap logging statements in if isEnabled checks. > > And as Gary mentioned, we intentionally created a bridge from Log4j’s API > to SLF4J for those who want to use some other implementation. > > Ralph > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
