Im going to say -1 unless there is something specific driving this. I dont see 
anything below other than "Project X did a similar vote". So please reply with 
reasons, requirements, concerns, etc.

My concerns are:

-Its another 3rd party library dependency for a non core function. Logging is 
not needed for the client to function properly. Im not against all 3rd party 
dependencies. I use them all the time. But there needs to be solid 
justification.

-Users dont need logging and shouldnt have logging enabled. Its a performance 
killer. Also, there is nothing in that log stream that can be helpful to a 
user. If a user wants to goto the extreme and turn on logging, the current 
logger can facilitate that.

-I would avoid forcing a logging framework on the project which uses this 
library.

So I would look at how Spring does logging [0]. If anything, maybe detect a 
logger and use it. But once again, thats going to be a performance hit and I 
think some of my points will still hold regardless of the approach.

[0] 
http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html/howto-logging.html


---

      From: Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]>
 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Logging in DeviceMap
   
+1 for SLF4J.

I am also volunteer for migrating all the existing Java logging routines to
SLF4J.



On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is one of the two development-side aspects I'd like to discuss, given
> it was also raised in the Tamaya list (they are still incubating but try to
> sort such things out at an earlier stage;-)
>
> As of now we have at least 2, sometimes up to 3 ways of logging.
>
>    - java.util.logging (mainly used by java-client/classifier alone)
>    - log4j 1.2.17 (used by many examples web-apps especially those for
>    classifier)
>    - slf4j (though I think I caught most of it and replaced with log4j 2
>    which offers an equally clean separation of API and Impl as SLF4J does)
>
> We should try to consolidate this further. I am totally unbiased, maybe we
> can just do a simple vote (like Tamaya PMC) in a "+1 for X" style?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Werner
>


  

Reply via email to