> On Jun 10, 2016, at 3:34 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:14 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 June 2016 at 10:46, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:12:23 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>>
>>>> I am not a fan of libraries and frameworks just logging away anyway.
>>>>
>>>> What I usually do this days:
>>>> Have an interface in the library itself. Along the lines of
>>>>
>>>> public interface Console {
>>>> void debug( String message );
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> What you do here (simple usage) is the same as what "slf4j-api" or
>>> "log4j2-api" do.
>>
>> Not really, because you also need a run-time implementation.
>> That's two extra jars, regardless of whether any output is needed.
>>
>> And the user has to provide a configuration file (at least with log4j)
>>
>
> Exactly. It's so simple and it doesn't introduce any deps.
> Whether that's goal one can align with is another matter.
> But it means no logging framework discussions anymore ;)
The disadvantage of this approach is that you loose the location information -
every log event will come from your debug method instead of the code actually
doing the logging.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
